Conference moira::parenting

    There's a fine line I think beteeen sexist remarks and comments about
    the attraction between men and women.
    
    To describe someone's attractiveness ... that is their potential
    likelihood for attracting members of the opposite sex may not be
    sexist.  Whether we like it or not, attractiveness is a major part
    of the so called chemistry ... both physical and psychological
    attractiveness.
    
    On the other hand, to put someone down using that kind of remark, or
    to use it for the purposes of adding sex to something that isn't ...
    like associating drinking beer with sexual attraction of attractive
    people ... is offensive.
    
    I have three daughters ... all are described as attractive and so on.
    I often joke that I'll have to have a weapons dispay at the front door
    that I am going to have to guard them.  I'm not putting my daughters
    down, nor am I saying their attractiveness is something to trade on.
    I am acknowledging a fact that it is likely that boys will in due
    course probably find them attractive.  I'm not putting down boys
    either ... it is a natural phenomenon.
    
    I don't class these comments as sexist.
    
    If I were to suggest to my girls that they use their attractiveness
    to get what they want, then THAT would be sexist.
    
    Stuart

   >I don't class these comments as sexist.
    
    ....unless they are said in a sexist tone.
    
    I've been guilty of saying that I'll have to beat the boys
    off with a stick when Natashas get older.  I mean this in the most
    loving way.  
    
    Also, I have 2 male friends that call me "sexy" and I call them "sexy"
    it's been an on-going nickname we've had for about 18 years.  I know how 
    they mean it & they know I mean it.  Someone outside might give this a
    strange look..........but we know it's not meant in a sexual sense. 
    
    I guess it's all where you're coming from......and who says what. 
    i.e., my family & friend can pretty much say anything whereas a
    stranger or another professional saying a comment might make me very
    uncomfortable.  As I get older (and more crotchedy sp?) I tend to speak
    out at someone who says something I don't feel comfortable with.
    
    Robin 

    
    	My goodness, just look at all of the violent remarks (male sexist)
    that we aim at ours kids -- just from the last few notes:
    
    	lady killer
    	knock them dead
    	weapons display
    	guarding daughters
    	beat the boys off with a stick
    
    	Even if these statements are said in the most "loving" way, they
    *still* imply incredible violence. Are we all (myself included) so numb
    to this that we no longer think of what we are *really* saying by using
    these statements with regard to our children?
    
    	
    			Wendy
                                

    In addition to the violent nature that Wendy points out, what bothers
    me just as much about these types of comments is the implication that
    males must be the aggressors (hopefully, instigator, and not aggressor
    at all!).
    
    Would parents (fathers) of sons say that they will have to beat back the
    girls?
    
    Leslie

>        lady killer
>        knock them dead
>        weapons display
>        guarding daughters
>        beat the boys off with a stick

I think we're almost going to come full circle back into the other string of
discussion of protecting our children!  Yes, we do use a lot of words
that imply some degree of violence in our language without truly meaning
any violence by them.   Of this list, the one that I suppose does bother
me most is "lady killer" and this one does verge on sexist, because it
may presume that a lady is a prize.  There are ways of taking the same
expression that aren't sexist ... it is contextual.  

But tell me Wendy, what did you say when the boys were so desparately
ill ... they were "fighting" for their lives.  Part of man's survival
is a fight or flight instinct.  We talk about the "fight" for survival.

There are lots of words and ideas that rely on some metaphoric relation to
violence.  If a stranger came up and made goo goo faces at your youngsters,
the first thing that goes through your mind is caution ... the adrenelin
starts pumping a little harder ... Perenthood as primed you to defend your
children with violence if you have to.

I don't think this is necessarily extra-ordinary ... or necessarily
wrong.

Stuart

    I have had the same type of remarks made to me and my son about 
    fending off the girls.  The tone being the girls as the aggressor.
    I always assure the the concerned party that when the time is right
    I will select him an appropriate mate;-)
    
    Seriously though, you can't change the entire world at once.  It is
    much more manageable one child at a time.  We have taught our son to
    respect all women (girls) and that he in turn should be respected
    by them.  We stress the two-way street on this issue. 

    	Hmmm, well now you've got me thinking. Yes, I did refer to my kids
    fighting for their lives and I have even said that I have fought for my
    life at various times.

    	It is a rather violent image isn't it?

    	I think though that the difference (to me) in the violence is that
    when you fight for your life you are fighting to persevere and enhance
    life. When you are "fighting" against another sex (for whatever reason)
    you are fighting to degrade or harm life.

    	Violence by itself is not bad, I will easily admit to that. It is
    how the violence is used that can be harmful.

    	I wish you lived closer Stuart, I'll bet we could have some very
    fine lunch time discussions.

    				Wendy

 >       lady killer
 >       knock them dead
 >       weapons display
 >       guarding daughters
 >       beat the boys off with a stick
 
     While it may be sad that our language has so many metaphors that have
violent terms in them, I personally don't associate physical violence with
any of the above terms.  For example, "lady killer" doesn't for a minute
bring to me an image of someone who literally kills women.  And "knock them
dead" doesn't mean that literally to me either; it means "make a strong
impression on".
     But since the title of the topic is "sexism and children", I see a
different problem in the remarks that were aimed at your son.  That problem
is that physically attractive people will use their physical attractiveness
for selfish ends, harmful to others.  Why should the man in the base note
have to protect his daughter from Spencer, even if he is a handsome blue-
eyed blonde?  My guess, and I'm sure Wendy's hope, is that, whether he is
physically attractive or not, that he will be respectful of the feelings of
others.
     I used to cringe when my daughter was described as a "future heart
breaker", and I believe, Wendy, that you would also be offended if Spencer
were called the same, even if the violent connotation isn't necessarily
there.
  

>    I am acknowledging a fact that it is likely that boys will in due
>    course probably find them attractive.  I'm not putting down boys
>    either ... it is a natural phenomenon.

     But why does the fact that boys may find them attractive mean that you
have to guard them?  Guard them from what?  Mere sexual attraction is
nothing to protect them from.  The implication that sexual attraction needs
to mean physical or psychological manipulation, by either sex, and therefore
deserves "protecting from" is the sad thing.


Clay

I think there are non-violent ways of conveying admiration or
good feeling about how attractive someone is.

Our neighbor's grandson, age 4, has beautiful blue eyes and sandy
blond hair.  When I saw him and his grandma the other day, I commented
on how most women would love to have hair like his, and said when he
grew up, he'd have lots of girlfriends.

I think another basic question though (violence being the other), is
why our society (myself included) are so hung up on looks as to 
comment on a 4-year-old's future love life! :^)

    
>     But why does the fact that boys may find them attractive mean that you
>have to guard them?  Guard them from what?  Mere sexual attraction is
>nothing to protect them from.  The implication that sexual attraction needs
>to mean physical or psychological manipulation, by either sex, and therefore
>deserves "protecting from" is the sad thing.
    
    
    Interesting thought Clay ... protection ... what am I protecting ? And
    what am I protecting from ?
    
    Very very complex question .... It's not easy ...
    
    I would be protecting my daughter from potentially dangerous suitors
    (after all 1 in how many may commit date rape ?   Oprah did a thing
    on that a couple years ago ... and I saw it ... :-)  ) by better
    supervision.  Sound crazy ?  No I don't think so  ... potentially
    a little inconsistent though.  
    
    I would be protecting myself from the fear of the coming departure 
    of my children.  Now there's an admission!
    
    There are a million reasons we as parents wish to protect and nurture
    our children.  To help them and so on.  Now here I go and try to
    protect my children, when a few hours ago I was saying that we
    over-protect.  I didn't say I was a perfect parent with all teh right
    answers and all the right emotions did I ?????? :-)
    
    Mind you when I say I want to protect my daughters in this way,
    I usually mean it somewhat tongue in cheek and not too seriously,
    although at the same time, I do have the feeling that I do want
    to protect them, that it is my duty to protect them.
    
    Stuart

is protect my daughters long enough to educate them to protect themselves.

michael

>    I would be protecting myself from the fear of the coming departure     
>of my children.  Now there's an admission!

Seriously, Stuart, I think that the fact we have older children is one of the 
reasons that you and I look on the "strangers" issue differently than Wendy 
is that our children are older.  My daughter is 13, and one of the things I 
have come to realize more and more often is that there are a lot of things I 
cannot MAKE her do.  She knows it, and I know it.  There are more and more 
times that I just have to say, not necessarily explicitly "Well, Lara, I've 
done my best.  I've said all I can, and if I say more, it will probably just 
alienate you.  I hope you make a good decision."  Quite frankly, this is 
happening much, much, earlier than I had expected.

I'm reminded of an old definition --

Independent:  	what you hope your children will be, as long as they do
 		everyting you say.

Clay
    

    So far, I see this discussion wavering around terms used 
    commenting on the beauty of children (aren't they ALL lovely?);
    
    What about sexism that occurs in school - Its been a while for
    me and my child is some distance away, but what is the world
    out there like for school age kids? 
    Are we still stereo-typing them by forbidding the girls to
    take anything outside of home-ec or sewing and the boys 
    auto-repair in their vocational classes (this was the case
    for me....)
    Are there still teachers out there practicing blatant gender-based
    favouritism? Didn't we just talk about a teacher like that?
    
    Monica

    Monica ... 
    
    Amazingly, in Kanata, no!!!!
    
    My daughter is taking Family Studies for half the year, and the last
    half is Industrial Arts (were she staying at this school...) Aren't
    the eupehmisms they come up with for needlework, cookery, metalwork and
    woodwork just wonderful!!!!!
    
    The absolute BIGGEST complaint I have about sexism and children is
    TOYS!!!!!  We still have Barbie ... I have yet to see any woman or
    girl who could come anywhere close to looking like Barbie!
    
    The biggest complaint I have about violence and children is TOYS!
    
    Stuart

    I agree with some previous replies about "HOW things are said more than
    WHAT they say". .1,the way you say your son looks,I'd take it as a
    compliment rather than "a sexist remark".Last night we were at this
    huge "all for the house and graden" place,and Yahli was in the pushcar,
    someone came across with a gorgeous little boy,about Yahli's age,and
    said "you better put her on the pill right now",so my sister turned and
    said "why,is'nt he using condoms???". The man was shocked for a second
    and then started apologizing,and said he only meant well and all.I did
    NOT take it that seriously. Hebrew is probably not that colorful,and
    we use other phrases than "kill","knock dead",but they are no less
    sexist than those in English.But again,it's all "how" rather than
    "what".
    BTW- it goes both ways-for girls and boys.
    About sexism in school.I know that here they have new books now,where
    dad sometimes stays at home and does the housework and mom goes to work,
    and I've come across at least 2-3 books for kids 4-8 that have kids
    living with dad and his boyfriend or mom and her girlfriend.Not that we
    are such an open society-we still have a looooong way to go,but the
    educational system have finally come to a point where they "admit" that
    there are all kinds of ways to leave,and nt all people are the same.
    And btw-Yahli,at the age of 22 months,can handle a screwdriver better
    than she can dress/undress her doll.Give her a truck anytime,and she'll
    take the dolls for a ride...
    r/
    

    Our school system requires both home economics and industrial arts for
    all students.  The school text books have long been re-written to remove
    the sexist overtones.
    
    This discussion also brings up a real pet peeve of mine about children
    having "girl friends" and "boy friends".  From the time my son has been
    in pre-school someone has always asked about his "girl friend".  He 
    has female friends and male friends and I encourage him to have both, 
    but a "girl friend"?  I think at an early age, we as a society push the
    concept of "girl friend/boy friend".  Perhaps this is in part why there 
    are so many comments directed at very young children regarding thier 
    potential for attracting the opposite sex.  
    
    

    >>This discussion also brings up a real pet peeve of mine about children
    >>having "girl friends" and "boy friends".  From the time my son has been
    
    That has ALWAYS bothered me. Even when I was a teenager and I heard
    this being said to little kids "Is he your boy friend?" This comment
    STILL makes me grit my teeth, and I am afraid that I will probably
    offend the first person who jokingly makes that comment about
    Charlotte.
    
    Monica

RE: last couple

	I've begun to see a distinct recognition of this and a trend away
from it by parents. As a school committee member and parent of 3 I attend
ALOT of meetings/discussions with other parents and this topic has been among
the most frequent over the last couple of years. In my community we have a
centrist school system with 4 levels. Having observed some changes in those
levels over the last few years has made an interesting case study in child
development (parent development too!!). 5 years ago we had the following
configuration: 

	Early Childhood Center: (age 3-6)Montessori, pre-school, K.
	Elementary		(age 6-9)Montessori, grades 1-3
	Middle			Grades 5-8
	High School		Grades 9-12
	Grade 4 housed in isolated wing of High School building but part of
	Elementary program.


4 years ago we reconfigured our levels to the following:

	Early Childhood Center: (age 3-6)Montessori, pre-school, K.
	Elementary		(age 6-9)Montessori, grades 1-3
	Middle 			Grades 4-7
	High school		Grades 8-12




What we've noticed is the following:

	1. Parental complaints about social issues shifted dramatically
	   from the middle school level to the high school level.

	2. Social problems related to dating, etc. have practically disappeared
	   from the middle school level. 



	This phenomenon appears to be related to the age groupings of kids.
Our middle school is actually two distinct buildings with a hub in the center.
It is configured so that 4th and 5th graders seldom have much exposure/mix
with 6th and 7th graders. We also pay alot of attention to the social mixture
of 6th and 7th graders (IE the first few dances of the year are held for
7th graders only). 
	At the High School we've just begun to address issues related to a 
5 grade span. While it is uncommon for 8th graders to mix with upperclassmen
we felt we could do more. This year the 8th grade has their own lunch period. 
Each class has seperate activities anyway but we've put some limits on school
dances (The 8th grade has always held a May dance - in the past it was a couples
only and got out of hand with expensive dresses and limos. We've set some rules
such as no limos, described proper dress, single tickets, a more relaxed social
evening) and limited access to certain grade levels at certain events. At this
level though you always face the issue of letting all kids participate in certain
activities too. The Drama program puts on a couple of plays (one musical/one
drama) and 8th graders participate. We make sure parents and students understand
about rehearsal schedules and cast parties but we don't restrict the activity. 
Athletics is another place where we don't restrict participation (except 
football - 8th graders are not allowed). 

    
    	not only is violence aimed toward our children (boy has this note
    made me aware of the words I say) but, like someone mentioned earlier,
    people feel free to comment on children's sexuality potential (for lack
    of a better phrase). When I tell people that we are having a difficult
    time weaning Griffin because he does not seem to be partial to foods or
    formula, some people look at me as though I am crazy. The looks and
    indeed, some of the comments suggest "well, he's a boy, of course he
    would prefer the breast" or "well if it were me heh, heh, I'd breast
    feed too". Imagine, assigning what amounts to a lewd sexual act to
    breastfeeding. While I admit that breast feeding is sexual in that it
    is an act of sex (femaleness) it is not "sexy" and therein lies the
    difference in the points of view.
    
    	We, as a society, have problems with violence and overstepping
    sexual boundaries, the cure is catch the cause not merely address the 
    symptoms.
    
    				Wendy

Wendy,

Thanks much for entering this topic.  It has addressed
a topic that I've recently begun to think a lot about -
that we, as a society, have spent a lot of energy on
on equal employment and pay for women, but not much 
energy on the more fundamental issue of respect for women.
All the other stuff, equal rights, equal opportunity, 
boils down to a lack of respect for the female sex.  

The harm to girls is fairly obvious, but it also harms
boys.  The harm to boys comes from them realizing at a 
very young age that the rules are different for girls 
than for boys, and "if Susie plays with me every day 
and there is no real difference between us, then why 
I am allowed to hit her, but she can't hit me?  Who 
is allowed to hit me?"

Somewhere recently, I read about how parents
do not convey to their sons that it is unacceptible to
physically hurt other people the same way they do to
their daughters.  In effect, boys are given permission
to resolve conflict thru physical action.  I think I 
read this in Gloria Steinem's "Revolution from Within", 
which focuses on the issue of self-respect and self-esteem
for all people, not just women.


What has been on my mind is that I have two daughters,
and I think my job of raising them to have respect for
others and for themselves is easier than if I had
had sons.  There is a lot of support in our society now
to help us raise daughters who have choices and 
self-esteem, in spite of the general bias of our
US society.  There is not much support for 
raising *sons* who also want choices.

But there is still so much work to be done to give our
children healthy attitudes towards each other, both for
girls and for boys.

The things *I* find difficult to manage:

1)  just like Stuart says:  toys.  They are incredibly
supportive of stereotypes. 

2)  books:  the USA's National Education Association
has recommended classroom books in a ratio of 2:1
for the sex of the main character in books.  (That is,
twice as many books with a boy as the major character
than a girl).  The explanation is that boys will not
read books with girls as major characters.  What this
tells me is:  there are not enough interesting books
with girls as main characters, and that at the tender
age of elementary school, boys are already being
given tacit permission to discount girls.  The NEA
is supporting this bias.


Ah, well, this reply is probably going to get me
flamed, but it's been on my mind, and I'm sort of
still working thru what *I* can do, on a daily basis,
to improve the situation.  I guess maybe it's true, 
that women *do* get more radical and activist at they
get older, because it's certainly happening to me.


Pat

    Sexism is alive and well.  Our children are faced with it day in and
    day out.  I think it is important to help children identify it for
    what it is.  At my sons age (almost 12) I have little control over
    what he sees and hears outside the home.  I do believe though that
    the environment at home can help him identify what is sexist, racist
    etc. and he does not have to propagate it.

    We do not allow sexual or racist jokes in our home.  I have explained
    from an early age these are degrading to whomever the punch-line
    is being directed at.  Not to mention it degrades the person telling
    them.  We do not have male/female jobs at the house.  We all
    participate in the cooking, cleaning, yard work etc.  When Matt has
    a day home ill, my SO and I split the day in half based upon our
    schedules.  

    From time to time when he hears something really blatant he will tell 
    me about it.  He had a teacher that actually told the students to look 
    for a certain type of newspaper article in the "women's pages".  He 
    couldn't believe it.  Then there was his Little League coach that 
    taunted the kids to play better by telling them they were playing 
    like a bunch of girls. 

    My point being, children are constantly exposed to sexual bias.    
    From the media, schools, peers, you name, but I think if they can
    recognize it for what it is, they themselves can get beyond it.  

When the children are older, it's easy to teach them how to recognize sexism.
What's been hard for me is keeping my preschooler/kindergartener from
internalizing it.  

At first I could overcome the stereotypes.  We didn't introduce them
ourselves, and we limited his exposure to them elsewhere.  However, as he
has gotten older and watched less PBS and more The Learning Channel and
The Family Channel, he has seen just *which* sex is shown playing with
Barbies (even Ken), and which sex is shown playing with violent toys.
In the toy stores, the toys are usually grouped by pink for girls vs.
non-pink and usually violent.

Additionally, there is *heterosexism* everywhere.  Always, as Wendy had
pointed out, there are comments assuming that a baby boy will have liaisons
with girls and a baby girl will have liaisons with boys.  From birth they
are identified by who it is assumed they will have relationships with.
As we all know, some of us will have gay or bisexual children, and many of
us who have heterosexual children will never see those children marry or
have children themselves.  We don't want our children growing up feeling
that if they don't meet the stereotype of marrying someone of the opposite
sex and having children, that they will be rejected or that they should
feel any less of a worthy human being themselves.

We are like any other parents, in that we don't know if our children will
be straight, gay, or bi.  We have tried to make it clear to our children
that they are loved regardless.  We have tried to make it clear that we are
not assuming they will be able to fall in love with one sex or the other, nor
that they should expect this of anyone else.  In this way we hope to help
them continue to build a good self esteem, and to be accepting of their
friends, regardless of whom they fall in love with or whether they fall
in love at all.

It's very difficult to bring our children up without the expectations and
behaviors of a sexist, classist, heterosexist, and even racist society,
especially when we find that we have some of those qualities ourselves. 
However, we feel that we must do it for the good of our children, so we do 
our best. 

    Carol

    All the images mentioned by the base noter and in subsequent replies
    have bothered me for a long time.  I've tried to have some influence
    over my nieces and nephews, especially my oldest nephew, who will come
    to live with me soon.
    
    I've tried to teach Michael what sexism is.  I've even caught myself
    making sexist remarks in front of him, then explaining why it was wrong
    for me to have done so (I have to get a complete handle on that one
    before he moves in!).  One of my prouder moments was when I overheard
    Michael say to a room full of men, "Aunt Susan says that's sexist!" 
    Of course, I'm not sure what he was talking about (I think it had to do
    with Mario Brothers, which was unbelievably sexist in its earliest
    versions), and it probably fell on deaf ears, but at least he's
    recognizing sexism.
    
    The last person's comments about sexuality reminded me of a family
    party.  My cousin and his wife had their first child, a son, not too
    long ago.  We were all commenting on how long the baby's fingers are. 
    His mother said, "Those are so he can play the piano or perform brain
    surgery!"  His father replied with, "No, they're to catch footballs and
    baseballs!"  She said, "No, they're to catch ballerinas as they leap
    through the air.  (pause)  And when he brings his gay lover, Bob, home,
    we'll love him just as much!"  They're an unusual couple.
    
    Another cousin will no longer shop at Bradlees because of their sexist ads
    showing little girls playing with kitchen stuff and little boys playing
    with tools.  I noticed the same type of ads in Walmart's flyer over the
    weekend.  (Sigh)  We have a long way to go.
    
    
    Susan

    I guess my son takes the middle road, he plays both piano and 
    baseball;-)

With regard to books, there is also the problem that it's difficult to get a 
kid to read a book when s/he's not interested in the subject matter.  To 
force a kid to read a steady diet of books s/he finds uninteresting may cause 
them to dislike reading period.  

For a while my son was reading a steady diet of books by an author named Matt 
Christopher.  As literature, they are imo awful.  They are all sports books, 
the protagonists are all athletic boys, they all follow some formula (the one 
redeeming grace is that there occasionally are some socially redeeming themes 
in addition to the sports action); if you've read one, you've read them all.
I wasn't all that happy about what he was reading, and spent not only money 
buying "better" books, but time and effort trying to get him to read them, 
but failed, and ultimately decided that if I discouraged him too strongly 
from reading Matt Christopher, he would take up "reading" Mario Brothers, 
comic books, or something worse.

My daughter never got into the popular "Babysitter's Club" series, but from 
appearances they are stereotypical in the other direction.

Clay  

    This is a topic I feel strongly about and I want to share some
    thoughts when I have more time.  I did want to respond briefly about
    the Babysitters' Club books, though.
    
    My six-year-old daughter, Caileigh, is an avid reader and has been
    buzzing through the new Babysitters' Club "Little Sister" books at a
    rate of one a day.  These books are newer than the other Babysitters
    Club books and feature a seven-year-old girl named Karen.  I have read
    a couple of them and don't find them particularly sexist.  I think it's
    great that there are books with a girl protagonist that are
    interesting.  These are by no means the only books she reads or that we
    read together, of course.  In our enthusiasm to avoid stereotypes, it's
    important not to inadvertently send the message that "girl" things are
    inferior.  There is nothing wrong with babysitting (or playing with
    dolls or sewing).  The problem is in limiting our daughters to these
    things and in restricting our sons from them.
    
    T.
    

    re .26
    
    Good points ... it definitely is a case that things we traditionally
    associate with being feminine are not abandoned by females in an
    attempt to discard the stereotypes, and at the same for male things.
    
    Violence associated with boys is one stereotype I'd love to be rid of
    (I just realized that I was about to type "blown away" ... sheesh it
    really is ingrained to use violent metaphor!)  I've seen a lot of
    violence from girls too!  Best to be rid of the violence.
    
    One thing that comes clear in this discussion though is the use of
    terms ... Sexist and sexual.  Sexist comments and behaviour are
    unacceptable.  Sexual comments and behaviour are acceptable in the
    right circumstances.  There is certainly a big difference in the
    meaning of the two words.
    
    Barbie is fine as a play doll, providing it is clear that Barbie is
    as ludicrous in the real world as a Cabbage Patch Doll in the child's
    eyes.  The trouble is that young girls see Barbie as attainable, but
    who'd want to look like a Cabbage Patch Kid!!!
    
    Jennifer (12) came to me the other day and asked about some beer ads
    on TV ... What does beer have to do with men and women flirting
    with each other ?  Smart kid already ... I wouldn't have given her
    credit for noticing.
    
    
    
    

    What Frank annd I have been trying with our girls is to teach them
    respect for themselves and others.  It is having some effect against
    the slings and arrows of the outside world.  
    
    When Lolita started college last year, she said she had never
    realized what kind of stereotypical behaviors between sexes we didn't
    have in our household, we seemed "so normal," if a little post '60's in
    our lifestyle.  Since she had been raised in a houshold where everyone
    learns enough mechanics to avoid being taken advantage of in a service
    station, everyone cooks, and everyone pitches in on the remodeling
    projects to the best of their ability, she was shocked when she found
    out that some of her fellow students initially judged her by her sex,
    looks, build and blonde hair.  However, once the people in her group
    figured out she was as capable at running a chain saw as anyone and
    could handle herself in the woods, as well as academically, she was
    once again repected.  (Yes this is a very different college).
    
    Carrie is in the 2nd grade and is a shining star at this point so she
    is getting enough attention from her teachers.  We've also been very
    lucky with the teachers in her school.  Both her first grade teacher
    last year and her 2nd grade teacher this year push kids to do the best
    they can, and reward kids who want to learn more.  We do try to keep
    her from the girls are/boys are nonsense, and encourage her to work
    with anything she is interested in.  
    
    No I don't insist on my girls playing with trucks, unless they want to
    ;-)  I do encourage them to stretch.  Our only restriction at our
    house and this includes the boys who come over, is that there will be
    no weapons or violent play, and no put-downs.  
    
    I know it's frustrating to deal with other people who have firm ideas
    on what boys and girls should play with/do, but I feel if we just deal
    with our own kids and raise them with respect, that the example may
    impact others, and that those others may alter some of their ideas as
    well.
    
    Meg    

re: .26

> I think it's great that there are books with a girl protagonist
> that are interesting.

I agree, and the books that I like best are the ones in which the thing
protagonist is doing something that is not typically associated with one
sex.  The Roald Dahl books, for example, in my opinion were interesting, and
he used both male and female protagonists; and I think that books that I
read would have been equally interesting if the sex of the protagonist had
been different.   

Sometimes -- possibly in an effort to diffuse the stereotype -- a character
is portrayed as doing something that is usually more closely associated with
the other sex.  Almost invariably, the awkwardness becomes THE theme of the
book, and actually reinforces the stereotype.

> In our enthusiasm to avoid stereotypes, it's important not to
> inadvertently send the message that "girl" things are inferior.
> There is nothing wrong with babysitting (or playing with dolls
> or sewing).  The problem is in limiting our daughters to these
> things and in restricting our sons from them.

A crucial and interesting point, and to me, somewhat of a dilemma.  The
question is to what extent does the existence of the stereotype contributes
to the limiting or restricting.  If some activity is perceived as a "girl"
activity, does that perception, by itself, make the activity seem inferior? 
Does the fact that the protagonists in the "Babysitters' Club" series are
girls serve to limit (or at least push) girls to babysitting or restrict
boys from it?  Does the fact that the protagonists in the Matt Christopher
books are boys serve to push boys toward athletics or discourage girls from
it?

If the perpetuation of stereotypes is a bad thing, which is worse, a child
who reads a lot of books that reinforce the stereotype, or a child who
hardly reads at all?

Clay

<    <<< Note 596.29 by BARSTR::PCLX31::satow "gavel::satow, dtn 223-2584" >>>

<If the perpetuation of stereotypes is a bad thing, which is worse, a child
<who reads a lot of books that reinforce the stereotype, or a child who
<hardly reads at all?

To be honest, Clay, I don't think there is an either/or answer to this one.
I would rather have a girl with low self-esteem hardly read at all than to
read things that will hurt her self-esteem further.  Likewise, I would rather
see a child not read much than to read things that put down people of a
particular minority group (to paraphrase your question: which is worse, a child
who reads a lot of books that reinforce the stereotype[s about Blacks], or a
child who hardly reads at all?"). 

If the child has a good sense of self-esteem, and esteems both sexs highly,
then perhaps that child is mature enough to see through the stereotypes.

I try hard, for instance, to choose books for my boys which have strong people
of both sexes, all races, various religions, and all sexual orientations and
family types.  It can be done.

       Carol

>I try hard, for instance, to choose books for my boys which have strong
>people of both sexes, all races, various religions, and all sexual
>orientations and family types.  It can be done.

Carol, I have no doubt that can be done.  Where I think the problem exists
is later, when you are no longer doing the choosing.  You can give them good
books, but you can't make them read them.  And sometimes they read a book
because a schoolmate read it or recommended it.

Clay

    I don't believe that people on the receiving end of sexism necessarily 
    have low esteem.  Moreover, I don't believe that reading material full
    of stereotypes is necessarily going to generate a belief that such
    stereotypes are normal.
    
    Stereotypes exist everywhere, and the thing is people let themselves
    happily fall into some stereotypical image ... after all, a lot of
    people do like to image themselves after somebody.  I'm not totally
    convinced that accepting and falling into stereotypes, or perpetuating
    them is necessarily bad.  If you remove all the things that cause
    stereotyping, we would be a fashionless, and essentially bland and
    monotype society.
    
    There are bad stereotypes ... boys must be violent ... girls must
    dress in pink ... women must stay at home ... men must work and so 
    on and so on.  But, in rejecting the stereotypes, we run a high
    risk of creating the opposite problem where women MUST go to work
    (how many women who choose to stay at home are now sneered at ...
    we've replaced one stereotype with another).
    
    It is obviously quite natural to have stereotypes in society.  What
    is critical is that not conforming to the stereotype should be
    perfectly acceptable too.
    
    How you progress from here, in the confines of a Parenting conference,
    I'm not too sure ... this is getting deep into human philosophy,
    women's issues, mens issues and so on. So, I'm going to leave it at
    that, especially since I've got boxes to pack to load moving trucks
    on Saturday!
    
    Stuart

I'd guess, too, that most young-adult readers are able to discern
drivel (including sexist drivel) from fairly good writing.  Drivel can 
serve as an escape.  

Goodness knows I read a fair number of those high-school romance
novels as a young teen.  I think I was able to separate that fiction
from my own reality, though.

>    I don't believe that people on the receiving end of sexism necessarily
>    have low esteem.

I think the reasoning is a bit different, Stuart.  I believe that sexist 
statements are more likely to be harmful to someone who has low self esteem; 
they are more likely to internalize them, and accept that the statements are 
accurate.  A person with high self esteem is more likely to challenge the 
statement or dismiss them.

re: .33  Interesting point.  I certainly hope you are right.  While my 
daughter was reading those Christopher Pike books, she was under a fair 
amount of stress.

Clay 

No, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with -1.  I do
not believe that most young-adults can discern the
drivel (including sexist), *unless they have been
taught from early childhood to evaluate what they
see and hear*.  That is, to question what the see 
and hear and decide if it is right for them.

While I believe things are better now than they
were when I was a kid, there is still a phenominal
amount of bias in everything we see and hear.

When I was in college, I took a class called
"Roles in the Mass Media".  It was one of the best
classes I have ever taken.  She opened my eyes.

I will describe an assignment we were given, and
anyone here can do it.  Decide for yourself
whether there is incredible bias around us that
we accept as "normal".

This assignment was for Saturday morning cartoons.
We repeated it for greeting cards. She
suggested choosing 20 common products (cars,
cleaner, books, record albums), and looking thru
magazine ads for the same data. You could 
do something similar for your child's books.

Watch 4 hours of Saturday morning cartoons, any
commercial station.  For each commercial, record:

	o  product being sold (food, toy, etc)
	o  sex of announcer
	o  sex and activity of as many characters 
	   as possible.


The data I gathered showed overwhelmingly that
women serve food, men eat food, boys play with
war games, girls play with dolls, etc.  I just
might do this again, 20 years later, to see if
things have improved at all.

Pat

If you wish to find out just how astute young people are to this issue just
ask the average middle school student which teachers are biased and what their
bias is. They know who the racists are, who the sexist males are, and who the
extreme feminists are.
 

re:  .36

My daughter had a section in Social Studies about stereotypes, sexual,
racial, and other, I would be surprised if your school didn't also.  It's a
good time to learn it, because teenagers are ESPECIALLY receptive messages
that allow them to point out to their parents their (the parents')
shortcomings as far as dealing in stereotypes.  That can be both infuriating
and enlightening.  And even if they aren't taught it directly, it's certainly 
topical, especially at a time in their lives in which they are thinking very 
much about their sexual personna.

re: .35

Hmmmmmm.  I wonder exactly what that shows.  If you view marketing as a
commercial exercise, as opposed to an instrument of social change, then the
roles in the commercials seem quite understandable to me.  Suppose you are
marketing a doll and you are writing a commercial to sell that doll.  Does
it matter whether the characters portrayed in the commercial are boys or
girls, and if so, will girl characters or boy characters sell more dolls?  I
would guess that objective market analysis would show that yes it matters,
and girls will sell more dolls.  I may not like the answer, but I don't
think that makes it any less clear.  

I guess the question here is quite similar to the question I have about
books.  Do portrayals, such as books or commercials, lead or follow, or
both?  It seems pretty clear to me that if significant numbers of boys began
to play with dolls, and are therefore in the market for dolls, we would see
doll commercials portraying boys playing with dolls.

The sex of the announcer is an interesting point, and to me the more subtle
and pernicious sexism.  If a commercial is a "testimonial", and the product
is used primarily by women, then quite often the announcer will be a female. 
But if the commercial is authoritative, the announcer most often male. 
There is no explanation for this, other than that men are more expert, even
in activities that are primarily undertaken by women.

Clay  

    re .34
    
    Clay, I follow your reasoning ... but ... by the same token, do we
    then denounce all kinds of other things because someone with low
    self esteem may take it to heart.  I know of someone who had very low
    self esteem, but not a depressive ...  This person was affiliated
    with a church.  The more she got involved with the church, the more
    dependent she became and what little self esteem she had crumbled.
    The reasoning went ... The Lord is perfect ... I am imperfect ...
    I can never be perfect ... I am therefore a complete failure ...
    I am a disgrace the the Lord.
    
    So, do we say that religion should be banned ?  I think not.  I am
    convinced that we have to teach discrimination ... (that is to say
    discernment ... the ability to identify what is and what is not
    acceptable)  Remember too that what is acceptable at 5pm today when
    I'm in a good mood, may be totally unacceptable at 10pm when I'm
    tired.
    
    Stuart
    

   I'll try not to step on any toes here, but there's something I've been
   thinking about that I want to say...
   
   We're all trying to teach our kids that all people are equal and
   should be treated equally and all that... that discrimination is
   wrong, and that everybody deserves a fair shake...  BUT...
   
   Let's not forget that there *are* gender differences that should not
   be completely ignored.  I believe you'll find that anybody with both
   boys and girls will agree that there are differences.  While it may
   not be easy to agree on what those differences are, or where they
   originated, we should be careful not to completely discount them. 
   
   Likewise, I believe that anybody who says that men and women are
   identical is probably not paying attention.   We are *different* - not
   better, just different.  My wife and I do *not* respond the same way
   to the same situations, and we do *not* think the same way.  I don't
   believe either approach is necessarily better, but rather that we
   compliment each other.  But for me to ignore these differences would
   be wrong, I believe.
   
   Anyway, equality is a good goal, as long as we don't gloss over the
   differences that make relationships work.
   
   - Tom  ( ... should I duck now... ?  :-)  )

    re -.1
    
    You don't have to duck from me, I totally agree.  Know any good hiding
    place incase we need one? 8.)  
    
    lori

    	I don't think that anyone is saying that males and females are (or
    should) be the same. 

    	I think that people (at least I am) are saying that people should
    not be penalized (or treated adversely) *simply* because of their sex,
    or race, or physical ability or.....

    				Wendy

    I'd like to add that whatever differences there are should come out 
    naturally, not because of preconceived notions about how the sexes 
    *should* act.  
    
    As an example, I have a neighbor, whom I consider to be pretty aware of
    these types of issues, who did something the other day that absolutely 
    appalled me.  (I'm sure that there a million examples out there.)  She
    has a 5 year old son and an almost-3 year old daughter.  The daughter was
    making a silly-looking face, which apparently was taught to her by her
    brother.  The mother said "Alyssa - what a scary face.  You learned that
    from Jason.  Wow, if a girl can make a face like that, you can hang out
    with the guys!"  In my opinion, that is an awful message to send.
    
    Also, It would be impossible to test the "nature vs. nurture" theory, because
    there are so many factors in our society that contribute to the "nurture"
    side of the equation, regardless of how we nurture as parents.
    
    Leslie

    There are so many metaphors in the English Language that if one took
    exception to every 'implied' meaning one could be going nuts over-
    reacting to things.  Language is an inexact method of communications.
    To a certain extent meaning is read in by the listener.  How many times
    have you misunderstood someone because the same words ment something
    different to the person speaking them than to you, or vice versa???
    Notes is a good example of that too because the reader misses the
    writers body language and voice inflections.
    
    Depending on the CONTEXT and inflections I would hear 'lady killer' as
    a statement that ment the male was VERY attractive to women.  Not that
    he was literally running around killing women. Yes Wendy we do have a
    very violent culture and our language certainly reflects it.
    
    I think one has to be careful not to overreact to language like that, 
    otherwise one could be driven nuts overreacting to every imagined
    insult. Doesn't Society have enough 'real' issues to work on?  I know
    I know, 'this is a real issue because it furthers violent thinking'
    well, maybe, but I think trying to change the way OTHER people talk to
    me is going to be a tough battle.
    
    Jeff
    

    Re .42
    
    "I'd like to add that whatevery differences there are should come out
    naturally, not because of preconceived notions about how the sexes 
    'should' act."
    
    Whew! Idealistic! A great thing to strive for but hardly reality.
    People so full of (myself included) preconceived ideas, prejudices,
    blind spots, ideas about what this or that word means (see other
    replies) that to expect other people to judge you upon what you 'really
    are' flies in the face of human nature.  "Reality" is filtered though
    all of our experiences and expectations and blind spots.... 
    
    If you can change this one (how other people react to what they expect
    and perceive) I WILL be impressed.
    
    I have 'battled' some of the above for years too: "What others 'should'
    perceive, and how others 'should' act. I finally realized there is not
    a hell of alot I can do about that.  I can primarily work on how I see
    things and react to things.
    
    I have a six year old son. I teach him to be himself and not to worry
    about how others think he should be as long as he is not hurting
    anybody.
    
    Genetic or cultural or a combination of both he acts as most BOYS act.
    My wife even gave him dolls to play with when he was three to make sure
    he wasn't being excessively steered toward 'boy' toys. He couldn't have 
    cared less about the dolls.
    
    Wendy, I think your goals in trying to provide a fair unbiased
    environment is certainly a 'nobel' one I also think you might be better
    off channeling most of your efforts toward the kids themselves. (I am
    not saying that your not doing that.)
    
    Jeff

	Perhaps I am being misunderstood (of course when one is vocal about
    an issue that is always a liability) I am not trying to provide a "fair
    unbiased environment". (although that would be nice ;-)) I am merely
    voicing an observation and initiating discussion.

    	I realize that I can not change the world, I think that one finally
    sunk in with my 30th birthday ;-) I know that the only one I can truly
    change is myself.

    	I also know that I *can* influence the actions of my kids (not
    *change* if they chose not to) and it is my hope to enlighten others so
    that they are given the option to change if they choose (isn't that
    what teaching is all about?).

    	I don't buy the argument that the English language is violent in
    nature or if we took everything literally we would be misunderstood.
    Using correct English is an art and discipline to which I someday wish
    to aspire (for what ever it's worth, E.B. White is my Great Uncle and
    it is to his talent I aim my sites).

    	To me statements like "everyone uses it" and "you know that's not
    what I *really* meant" are excuses to remain in the dark. Change must
    begin with awareness and change often requires effort (wouldn't it be
    easier to just not have to think about all of this?).

    	As for me, I plan on making a concerted effort to modify my
    language, just as I do not allow slang or colloquialisms in my
    student's writings, I plan to not allow (or certainly frown upon)
    violent language in our household.

    				Wendy

re:  .44  SALEM::GILMAN                                        
    
>    If you can change this one (how other people react to what they expect
>    and perceive) I WILL be impressed.
    
    I don't plan to change this by myself, but I do plan to try to make
    others aware of the injustice (in my opinion) that they are doing to
    children by discouraging (subtly or overtly) them from doing things 
    that they enjoy doing.  Children should not be made to feel that there
    is something wrong with them if they enjoy activities that are considered
    appropriate for the other sex.  I think that there would be a lot more
    androgynous behavior than a lot of people would expect.
    
>    Genetic or cultural or a combination of both he acts as most BOYS act.
>    My wife even gave him dolls to play with when he was three to make sure
>    he wasn't being excessively steered toward 'boy' toys. He couldn't have 
>    cared less about the dolls.
    
    OK, so this is a classic example.  Would he have cared more about the
    dolls if he had seen other boys playing with dolls?  Would he have
    shown more interest in the dolls, if they had been given to him when
    he was younger (and less susceptible to peer pressure and less aware of
    what his peers (boys) were doing)?  These are rhetorical questions only, 
    obviously ...
    
    No, I'm not so naive as to expect that this will change overnight (or
    ever, for that matter).  But, I think that I am realistic and optimistic 
    enough to expect that, with heightened awareness and sensitivity, this
    will improve.
    
    Leslie
    

    	To add some more,

    	Yes, I believe that this is a "real" issue that should be addressed
    (if not here, where else?)

    	and yes, I believe that I can change how people talk to *me* simply
    by making it very clear that the talk is unacceptable behavior that
    will not be tolerated. I don't tolerate sexist and racist jokes (and
    all of those other kinds of jokes) and by simply stating that, they
    usually stop. If they don't I walk away or change the conversation,
    people usually get the message and they modify their behavior to my
    *stated* boundaries (for if we don't state our boundaries how is
    someone to know?).

    	A classroom is an exceptional example, however, I can give you
    dozens of examples from there of people modifying their talk to me.
    (no use of ain't, difficult denotes a task - hard denotes density,
    etc., etc.,)

    	All it takes is one little voice calling out from the dark for
    people to start listening.


    				Wendy

Keep in mind, too, folks, that boys routinely play with dolls.  They just
call them "action figures" instead.

       Carol

    Yeah, thats right Carol, action figures, not dolls.  Its all in how
    they are presented isn't it Carol? Smile.  
    
    I don't know if my son would be more into 'true' dolls (in dresses etc.
    rather than in camo garb) if he hadn't been pressured by culture into
    acting 'appropriately'.  Its virtually impossible for me to tell which
    of his interests/behaviors are inate (male) vs. personality interests.
    He DOES like quilting with my wife though.  Hmmmmm.  Yes, I can handle
    it (his interest in quilting).
    
    Wendy, is the word 'ladykiller' a violent word which you would take
    offense to if you heard it in your home? I think you said as much in
    one of your earlier entries.
    
    You often mention "your class".  What and where do you teach?
    
    My wife would also take great offense at any jokes which had any
    ethnic or racial slurs in them.  So I can relate to that perspective.
    
    Yes, this is a good place to discuss these thoughts Wendy. I was trying
    to figure out HOW serious you are about some of them.
    
    Sometimes I push a bit in notes to determine how serious a person is
    in their statements, and how well thought out some of those statements
    are.  So.... take my remarks with a grain of salt.  Sometimes I am
    'thinking on paper' here to figure out what I really think.
    
    Jeff

    re. 23  Sexism in retail store... boys playing with tools girls in
    kitchens etc.
    
    Now we are into REVERSE sexism.  The assumption that if a girl is
    pictured in a kitchen its sexism or a boy mowing the lawn is sexism.
    How do we know that the girl didn't PREFER being in the kitchen or
    the boy mowing the lawn?
    
    The only way to beat this is to picture BOTH the boy and girl in the
    kitchen, and the boy and girl mowing the lawn. Now EVERY one should
    be happy.
    
    This reaction (implied sexism IMO) is another example of reality in
    the eye of the beholder vs. possibly actual reality.  Actual reality
    in my example that the girl WANTED to be in the kitchen vs. HAD to
    be in the kitchen because it was expected.
    
    Jeff

    Wendy I can see your point.  It isn't that hard to excise certain
    words at work, and to make it clear that they are unacceptable in a 
    home as well.  We have a list of words that aren't used in
    our home relating to ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious
    differences, and gender.  Most of them could get you hauled in to HR
    for a crash course in valuing differences anyway if you used them in
    the office.  
    
    Remembering to excise some of the violence in our language shouldn't
    take much more thought.
    
    I don't see where teaching children to be nurturing should interfere
    with their inborn differences either.  As Gloria Steinham has said, we
    will not have an equal society until men are accepted as being able to
    nurture as well as they kill bears.
    
    Meg 

<    Now we are into REVERSE sexism.  The assumption that if a girl is
<    pictured in a kitchen its sexism or a boy mowing the lawn is sexism.
<    How do we know that the girl didn't PREFER being in the kitchen or
<    the boy mowing the lawn?
    
It becomes sexism, Jeff, when the overwhelming predominance of these pictures
have just that gender performing that task.  If both boys and girls were
shown equally performing those tasks, then an isolated picture would not
be sexist.

      Carol

    This is a very late reply!  But, I have seen ads that *do* depict both
    boys and girls playing in the kitchen sets and with lawn mowers, and
    with the tool sets.  WalMart ads often have both genders playing with
    whatever toys they are advertising.  I like that.
    
    Also, my younger nephew plays with dolls - they're boy dolls to him,
    and he dresses them in "boy clothes."  But they're dolls and he plays
    with them.  My older nephew did, too, when he was little.  And they're
    not brothers, but cousins who only see each other once in a while.
    
    By the same token, I have one niece who *loves* "girl toys" like dolls,
    cookware, teasets, etc. and one who is only interested in "boy toys"
    like trucks, planes, guns, etc.  They *are* sisters, and have no
    brothers.
    
    My youngest niece loves any toy you give her (at 18months, I guess that
    isn't too unusual!).  She loves her trucks as much as her teaset.  She
    has no brothers and sisters, yet.
    
    All my nieces and nephews love(d) playing with kitchen sets.  Most boys
    love to pretend they're cooking as much as girls.  They also love to
    help their parents (and me) cook.  And Andrew (3 years) loves his toy
    vacuum cleaner as much as his toy lawn mower!  Before school and
    day-care start, they'll play with whatever is there, and have fun doing
    it, developing favorites based on their own imaginations.