Page 374 of the book states, "Gender is a key component of the self, and it can strongly influence our sense of self-esteem. In this section, we examine how children form gender-role conceptions, that is, the images we have of ourselves as males and females. Do you view yourself as sensitive, emotional, and dependent? If so, then your self-image conforms to what society defines as feminine. If you describe yourself as independent, assertive, and strong, then your self-image is consistent with the masculine ideal. Gender conceptions are important for understanding not only the self but the behaviors of others. As they grow up, children use information from parents, peers, school, and the media to form theories for how men and women should behave".
I agree that children use information gathered from their world to to create an understanding of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, which the book defines as gender conceptions (374). An individual's gender conceptions are influenced by his or her environment, because gender is a social construct. The gender roles and identities for men and women are radically different in certain indigenous African tribes than in Western US society. This is because expectations of men and women vary according to society and culture.
The books lists stereotypical characteristics of masculine and feminine traits in both the text and Table 6.3. Feminine traits in table 6.3 are listed as "affectionate, sensitive, passive, emotional, cooperative, dependent, weak, gentle and fearful" (375). Masculine traits are "aggressive, ambitious, dominant, rational, competitive, independent, strong, tough, courageous" (ibid). These traits are gender stereotypes created and perpetuated by Western culture. The book lists these negative, false generalizations as essential elements of gender. Who says that feminine is one way and masculine is another? Why continue accepting these stereotypes as normal and realistic? They aren't! They are just broad generalizations that could never, ever encompass the complex and unique nature of all human beings, regardless of their sex. Gender is social. Sex is biological. Gender is not linked to or dependent upon sex. Gender is a product of the culture we live in; it varies across the world and across cultures. Sex does not.
The book defines gender in terms of masculine, feminine or androgynous. If a man fits into masculine traits he is in the "right" gender. If a man exhibits feminine traits, he is exhibiting characteristics of the "wrong" gender. If a man exhibits characteristics of masculine and feminine traits he is "androgynous". I think this is laughable. Instead of creating a category called "androgynous" to encompass people who "don't fit", why not examine the power structures behind the system? Who says that human beings can or should be categorized as either male, female or androgynous? How does it affect our children's identity, self concept and self esteem to be inundated with expectations of how they should look, act, feel and socially interact based on their biological sex? Are these expectations positive? Why continue propagating them?
I would love to see teachers learning to accept the children they teach for who they are and for--not despite--the way they express themselves. this book's section on gender is a big disappointment for me and I urge people who read it to think twice about the information they are reading.
Here are a few books that address some of the topics I've mentioned:
Foccault, Michael "The Archaeology of Knowledge" (1969).
Butler, Judith. "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity" (1990).
Butler, Judith. "Undoing Gender" (2004).
Essig, Laurie. "Queer in Russia" (1999).
Leblanc, Lauraine. "Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boy's Subculture" (2000).
No comments:
Post a Comment