Written by: Annie on 3/15/98 at 10:38PM. Okay, a few nights ago in my sociology class we discussed our chapter on gender and sexuality. We watched a movie, rather a made for tv documentary, on how we learn gender roles and how they develope in children and throughout adult life. The movie focused on children and toys, how the toy manufacturers have been accused for years on end of influencing children towards sex oriented toys, promoting pink, makeup, and frilly stuff for girls and then blue and war toys and trucks for boys. Studies were shown on how little girls most always prefer to play with girls toys and boys with boys toys when offered a wide selection of both. Parents who claimed to raise their children to be indifferent to societal standards for little boys and girls showed their dissapointment when their little boys rebelled against them by turning carrots and barbie dolls into swords and guns when denied access to real war toys. Little girls were mostly unamused with toy tractors and unisex toys and prefered to play dress up and act out elaborate fantasies in their heads. The studies showed that girls prefered interactive games and were deeply concerned with the wellbeing of thier play mates and the conditions of their toys where as the little boys prefered violent games and showed aggression towards eachother. In one experiment the reasearchers put a little boy behind a wall of glass seperating him from his mother, the boy promptly charged at the glass in an attempt to break it and get to mom. When repeated with little girls, the majority stood behind the glass and cried. Does this show the boys are strong and girls are weak? Boys brave and girls passive? No, of course not because these are generalizations and there are ALWAYS exceptions. One must take into consideration the circumstances under which the studies are done and the outcome the reasearchers hope to get. The program intended to show that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. But the question remains how are these children socialized? Growing up in an inviroment where equality is promoted does not free the children from outside influence so it seems like the experiments would only be accurated if these kids had been isolated from all other children, the media, i mean the studies even showed that parents hold baby boys differently than girls. But then what if male female difference IS biological? Boys tend to look around as infants where as little girls fixate their stare on specific things or people. Is this the reason wemon are able to read emotions better than men and that men have a better sense of direction (supposeldy)? Brain tests also show that men and women think about the same things with diffeerent parts of the brain! There are different chemicals present in the same parts of a male and females brain. I mean what if men and women are different because we've evolved differently. (not that by 'different' i dont mean physically different becasue those differences are all very aparent, but rather that we do things differently) Okay, there is biological proof that two species that are exactly the same can be isolated from one another by their locations or the food they eat of a natural disastor and those two species taht were once the same are later found to be intirely different species that specialize in intirely different things just because of the experiences they were exposed to after seperation. What if thats why its so hard for women to reach equality with men, because we've been doing this for so long, we've been subordinate for so long, we've been all the things we're rebelling against for so long that maybe our genes are predestined to maintain the role of 'the woman.' Now i dont believe that and i hope you dont either, but just what if? What if the fight for equality is hindered by genetic habit? Well, obliously that habit MUST be broken. BY habit i mean our maternal instinct, why is it that if you put a woman in a room with a crying baby she has better chances of soothing it than a man with equal experience with children. Are we being held back by evolution? Okay, so tests also show that on average girls have better verbal and comprehension skills and boys are more inclined to math and spaceial skills. Law suits have been filled against the College Board saying that SAT tests are biased against women because as you know there are math weighted and verbal weighted tests. (meaning of seven tests on a math weighed test 4 are math and 3 are verbal and then visa versa) The prosecutors say that girls lacking math skills are put at a disadvantage to boys and there for score lower on the SATs than boys. They are pressing to compile gender specific tests for male and femal students. I think thats horrible and that it only promotes inequality. Then when a female student recieves a high score you'll hear, "well thats because she got an easier test." The same thing with job openings, because of law suits some places are slackening the physical tests given to applicants. For potential firefighters for example, the departmant admittance requirements are too rigorous for many of the femal applicants. Now its one thing for standards to be purposely biased against women, but as far as im concerned a female SHOULD have to preform the EXACT same tests as a male. It doesent matter if you are a man or a woman, if you cant lift that ladder, hold that hose steady, or drag that person out of the burning building then you arent fit for your job. Lots of tension arises among the male and female applicants because of wattered down tests for women in order to appease affirmative action campaigns in the communities. Men and women who can complete their tasks to the standard required feel spitefull against the women who cant. That animosity, if anything is what promotes discrimination and inequality. It seems to me that one should get a job based on their aptitude of achievement and their pontential for success, not because their physical strenght puts them at a disadvantage. Also, should women pay more for their haircuts? Is that discrimination? Recent New York state legislation says that no two people may be charged the different price for the same service. So salons all over New York are being prosecuted by a group of eager law students supported by equal rights activists for charging different prices for men and women's cuts. Does this seem extreem to you? Maybe not, but it does to me. I mean as much as i would like to only pay 9 bucks or so for my hair cuts, i honestly believe that cutting a womans hair requires a different service. Granted that depends upon the cut requested, it seems to me like a hairstlyist spends longer with a female customer than a male one. Hair stylists say just that, they informed the court that women have in general longer hair, want different styles, want more information on what to do with their hair post cut, how to maintain the style, ect than men do. Maybe price should be based on the time it takes to cut and style the hair and not on gender? ***** well sorry that was so long, i just wanted to hear some opinons on this and hopefully get something controversial up on chiansaw for once.*****

Replies:

Reply from: cold cut on 3/15/98 at 11:09PM. ppl grow into there surroundings basiclly like animals. if there were brought up in a rough enviroment animal will have a constant urge to defense it self as would a human to ridicule and verbal/phsyical abuse. as a gender if you are a female in a house ful of males and not ever desiring that need to play with a barbie you would either be considerd a tomboy by trate (just a girl who can defend herself ) or you would fall into the the only child and brother sister(3-5dif) were you either have boost of self esteem unless as always somthing happends to you and fucks you up (this works with any type of family of coarse). well before i pull out my pshyc. book. i think thats pretty intresting that you said that. i had a discucion on that about a day ago. Reply from: penny on 3/16/98 at 2:00AM. i have an old 70s life science book that talks about the same kind of experiment where children were separated from their mothers and the boys tried to jump the barrier while the girls cried. this is totally because of how boys and girls are trained into these roles. it even said about how people are more likely to cuddle and play with a baby girl and so this is where it starts: the girl is taught that all she has to do is look cute or pitiful and people will rush to her attention, whereas the boys are taught that they have to fend for themselves, hence the results in the experiments. i don't know all the sciencey stuff about it but i don't believe for a second that i am anything that society tells me a girl should or shouldn't be just because i was born female. when i'm alone in my room by myself i'm completely equal with everything else on this planet and i don't have a gender role. it's when you have contact with the rest of the world that your gender role becomes apparent. so it's not you it's society.

Reply from: Misanthrope on 3/16/98 at 2:03AM. In response to the opening statements, one must keep in mind that influence of gender roles does not exclusively come from the parents. A child is not only brought up by her/his parents, but is brought up and influenced by all surrounding people/society as well. This can range anywhere from G.I Joe commercials advertising using only boy actors in their commercial, implying that it is a male toy and, even, role, and Barbie commercials using the same principle, but advertising to a female audience to just everyday people influencing a child with their traditional gender role traits and actions. Society is a large contributor to perpetuating gender roles. For example, the general consensus of people, the dominant societal thought, is that sports are considered masculine. A person raised in such an evironment will most likely conform to that train of thought, which is why most athletes are male, and even the female ones are considered to have masculine characterisitics. Sexuality follows these guidelines,too, in the societal perspective. Women with masculine traits are often accused of being lesbians, the common factor here being that masculinity is associated with being attracted to feminimity. The same principle is true with male homosexuals.

Reply from: Annie on 3/16/98 at 8:09AM. In response to your comment on commercials designed for boys and girls, the program discussed that as well. It seems that toy companies have put thousands of dollars and lots of effort inot designing and marketing uni-sex toys, boy barbies, and girl action figures. 9 times out of ten even when encouraged to play with the boys toys, the girls will still chose the frilly. So as a result the toy companies have virtually given up thier efforts to eliminate the distinct lines drawn between girls and boys toys. See, it is in the benifit of toy companies to minimize the difference between boys and girls toys and make their products acceptable for both sexes because then they would double their market and sell twice as many toys. on a side note, its sad i think that an 'i hate carl' post has more response than this, but oh well, thats life.

Reply from: jefff on 3/16/98 at 11:43AM. umm to last anon.. whatever leather. some ppl are poor spellers (personally i really didnt notice anything wrong with annie's spelling). some ppl, i swear. anywho... it is not surprising that boys and girl generally rejected unisex toys. considering that kids are ingrained with gender roles since birth (the cuddling example is excellent), such toys will not easily fit into either the female or male gender makeup. its like giving a kids the choice of wearing 18th century clothes, when all they sees around them are 90's fashions. as far as wether personality differences are biological, i can only speculate (cuz i havent really studied this at all..). i can say tho that i managed to stray away from "male" toys. i think if i remeber correctly i was a big fan of blocks and tonka car (which i guess are partially male, but not as much as saw gi joe figures might be). it is impossible to say tho wether this is because i was brought up in a gender neurturing enviornment, or wether i have more feminity "in mi genes" then say some of mi friends who ran around with guns all the time. xoxox, jeff... ps, shit. is everything spelled right? i dont want the spelling police to come get me. please...

Reply from: An anonymous viewer on 3/16/98 at 3:25PM. i guess the reason annies having trouble spelling is that its hardto go from spelling everee thing lyke this to spelling normally.

Reply from: misanthrope on 3/16/98 at 3:29PM. The theme of these toys is still significant of gender roles. I fail to believe that male barbie dolls or female action figures are a good example of "unisex" toys. The theme of many action figures is violence and war (which is a reprehensible theme). Violence and war is generally considered a man's game, that's inherent and enforced all through society (ie conscription, females aren't coerced into signing up with selective services when they turn 18), so, female action figures or not, the theme appeals to traditional and enforced male gender roles, thus, not appealing to female gender roles. The toy industry is just one small facet, and the reason why there are difficulties in marketing these unisex toys is because in every other facet of society these gender roles are pounded into the minds of children, all people even. I don't put much faith in generalizations either, I focus the importance on the individual. You could do a study about anything and get criteria. You could conduct a study amongst red haired people and dark haired people that would reveal one of the generalizations to be more competent in spelling, or anything you choose, but that does not mean that is always true nor does it mean that hair color has an effect on spelling skills. The skill is that of the individual. You can change the study from hair color to sex or race, but the principle remains. I realize there is a difference, but I believe it has only a minimal effect if any at all. I do not believe there is any gender nature or human nature that we are obliged to fulfill. The ultimate decision of who we are and who we want to be is ours. This stems from our awareness, from being conscious.

Reply from: Annie on 3/16/98 at 3:39PM. Misanthrope, i agree with you exactly. The focus SHOULD always be on the individual. I agree that these studies are biased and therefor inconclusive. What i should have said rather than that toy companies were trying to create 'uni-sex' toys by makeing barbies for boys and action figures for girls was that they were trying to market gender specific toys that DO indeed carry on those same steriotypes for the opposite sex. In doing such the companies hoped to double their profits, but unfortunately for them their efforts were in vain because the children remained loyal to their sex specific toys. The girls didnt want to play with their female action figures and the boys used their barbies to sword fight. Like jeff, i was a kid inclined to more unisex toys. Blocks and trucks and imagination games apealled to me more so than barbies and lacy dresses. But i did indulge in 'girl' and 'boy' toys as well. Maybe thats the reason i find myself unable to identify my sexuality as bi, straight, or gay. Maybe i have a little bit of everything in me. I dont know?

Reply from: nikki monster on 3/16/98 at 8:56PM. well, i think it's pretty fucked up that they are actually performing these kinds of tests on little kids in the first place. there's no difference between this and animal testing, since the children are so young and they don't have the chance to say "no, i don't want to participate in this test." it's exploitation. i don't care what the cause is, and how positive it is.. if you support this, you support animal testing and that's that.

Reply from: Annie on 3/16/98 at 10:26PM. There is one gap in that argument, that gap is that the children are not physically hurt in any way shape or form by such test. While i do not support the biased methods of testing these children, i am not against the testing in general because if we dont do experiments how in the hell are we going to ever learn anything? These are observational experiments, not vivisection.

Reply from: thepissass on 3/17/98 at 2:46AM. i once knew several boys who played with barbie dolls. one little boy named tony at my baby sitters when i was little, and another boy named steven when i was a little older. i also would play barbie and gi joe have sex with my brother. barbie always being the more dominant one of course. biased biased biased.

Reply from: sylph on 3/17/98 at 7:54AM. YAY!! I've been looking for some intelligent, thought-provoking posts.. heh- FINALLY. First of all, i'd like to point out that the comments made have been *amazingly* intriguing and exceptionally well-said. I remember studying such experiments in both my psychology and women's studies sequences; and i wish points like these had been made. My childhood depended on playing with those nifty self-invented or gender-UNspecific toys- a wide-open field, use of lotsa sticks, riverside forts and bridges.. leaves & rocks were money, our bikes and big-wheels were our police-cars/taxis/airplanes, and that field (at any given day) was whatever we made it out to be- sometimes a schoolroom, a bmx racetrak, a war-field, an entire town, and sometimes an entirely different planet. As a result, my parents raised some very intelligent, capable, humorous, *somewhat* well-behaved (heh), great kids. We're as different from each other as we could possibly be, but that NEVER inhibited us from liking/tolerating each other and expressing those differences.. even now.. we get along *great*. And my point to all this? I agree completely with the idea of raising children in non-specific environments, where imagination is the control. 'Cause yeah, maybe my parents weren't rich and couldn't afford to buy expensive, breakable toys for all four of us (and our friends) during our youth, but WE GOT BY; and i honestly think that it was better for us, not having the shit that other kids had. It made us stronger, in ways. I see these kids now, growing up with power rangers, and that big, purple love-everything fella, and the oh-so-famous-and-much-coveted (-deah-gawd-please-help-us!) BARBIE, and all i can think is, 'aw dammit.. the world's going to hell.' So what happened to being creative? I'm not saying it's the solution; but for me, for us, it eliminated the entire idea of gendered toys being incorporated or enforced into a child's lifestyle. I dunno..? Maybe it IS a solution.. Whadd'ya think? Any studies concerning that that you remember? I can't think of any, but it would certainly be interesting to dwell on. .......Oh, and the comment about peeps' spelling habits- gimme a break. I'm an English major, of all things, (going for an emphasis on psychology and/or women's studies), and i have nothing wrong wif peepul spelling things as they sound. It's expression. Correct grammar & spelling has always been set by male standards, way before women were allowed to publish their works, so why don't we give up on tradition already?? (speaking of gender-specifics!!) C'mon! it doesn't matter how one spells something or says something, as long as that something is heartfelt and has content. Aw'right??? ....yeesh, i'm done now. Rilly. :) hehe.. love, jenna.

Reply from: Annie on 3/17/98 at 8:33AM. On the topic of females publishing their work in a male world, a famous poet-ess (gosh i forgot her name) in the turn of the century had to pursuade her brother to publish her work because it could be printed nowhere else. The publishing was contingent upon the author writing and APOLOGIE in the preface saying stuff to the sorts of how sorry she is if her work is not adequate enough to be read in a male dominated world and how she is so sorry that she's not up to par with thier liteary genius but to please read her work and be less critical, because after all, she was a woman. More fortunate than this case is the highly aclaimed work of Mary Shelley's Frankenstine. Wife of then liteary master whats his face (was it thomas hardy, im not sure?) Ms. Shelly's masterpiece was the product of a nights game. Her husband and all his other writer friends were snowed in after a party and settled down for a writing contest, each contestant had the whole night to write a novel, they swictched stories, criticized, discussed, blah, blah, blah. Mary Shelly's work gained the highest acclaim of the night, i dont remember the specifics as to if she shared he work with the writers at the time, i cant imagine that she did because im sure that would have been insulting to have a woman on the same level as men, but in the end the published Frankenstien is a noted work and one of the earliest horror novels. The end.

Reply from: nikki monster on 3/17/98 at 1:31PM. dee - i don't really see the gap in that argument, simply because the children were put in these postions and experiments possibly against their will. also, the results of the experiments put both children in distress, as you could see by their reactions. because they weren't "physically hurt" doesn't mean that it's not different from animal testing.. think about it. suppose a test is being done on an animal, and no reaction comes out of it (therefore putting the product on the market, etc.), the test was still being done without the consent of the party (in that case, an animal, in this case the children).. at any rate, i'm glad that this post is here.. although the posts of substance are always getting pushed to the back to make way for posts like "ooh dee sucks" and "my hair color is better than yours!" rock on, dee!

Reply from: penny on 3/17/98 at 2:12PM. sylph - i like what you're saying. these days if you buy new toys, barely any imagination is required. they're prenamed, they (for example barbies) come with her whole personality/occupation sorted out already, if you buy the houses or whatever it comes with EVERYTHING, children aren't encouraged to invent their own things or use their imaginations. it sounds like you had a really rad childhood! one of my favourite toys that i still play with on occasion today (and will get almost anybody hooked) is lego! you can use your imagination to your heart's content. although lego is starting to come pre-packaged with a theme too, with the theme either being pirates or jungle or whatever, but just the plain blocks are great cause it's non-gender specific and encourages inventiveness and imagination. but yeah how you used things from nature as your toys, i think nature is the best playground for kids cause there's absolutely NO limits and it's free and encourages kids to care and learn about their environment rather than consuming and playing with a million and one plastic toys. sorry if this has gotten a bit off the track of gender roles but i just wanted to respond to sylph. kid power!

Reply from: sylph on 3/17/98 at 2:35PM. sanks, penny! *blushing* yeh, i did have a rad childhood. might not have been so great to someone else, but it seemed to work for me, my siblings, & our friends. Laura Bacall once said, "Imagination is the highest kite one can fly," and i've always remembered that quote (word-fer word) because there's SO MUCH truth to it that it's unbelieveable! ....so yeah. thanks! :) er, ps- how's ebreebuddy seperating their stuff into paragraphs? i would, too, if i knew how, 'cause without 'em, this stuff is tuff to read! bleh!

Reply from: the ocelot on 3/18/98 at 0:14AM. AH, Gender roles. I, as a gay male have always found it embarassing to admit that I at one time owned a "My Little Pony". For a long time, until I was about 12, I thought that might be what caused me to be gay. That brings up another related subject: What determines a person's sexual preference? First of all I havea fag longer than I can remember(since birth,as far as I can tell) and I don't recall having a choice in the matter. Now at school, I hear of lots of girls "deciding" to become dykes. This makes no sense to me unless they were at least bisexual to start with, unless they were pretending to be straight, or are pretending to be gay now. ugh....its all too confusing and that wasnt very linear, sorry.

Reply from: hanna on 3/18/98 at 0:37AM. ok here's my theory on sexual orientation: i think that the majority of people are probably technically bisexual, but events in their life, what kind of attitudes they grew up with, people they meet, experiences, etc. encourage them to mainly or completely like/love people of either the opposite sex or the same sex or both sexes. i think there may be some choice involved, although it might be unconscious for most people. and i don't think it's wrong if people chose to be queer or whatever. but if someone consciously makes that choice, i think they must've been bisexual in the first place. i personally don't recall choosing to be a dyke, but there have been certain events in my life that i can see why i would feel more of an attraction to girls than to boys, and maybe some part of me did decide to only like girls. i don't know.

Reply from: hanna on 3/18/98 at 0:47AM. p.s. i know the whole choice thing can be kinda dangerous to talk about, because certain homophobic assholes would like to use that against us and say "well why dont you chose to be heterosexual then?". but really, that's not the point. the fact that some of us may have had some choice is no excuse for oppressing a group of people. personally, even if i had a conscious choice, i would pick to be a dyke anyway. i just wanted to say something about that...

Reply from: sylph on 3/18/98 at 7:49AM. right on, hanna. i don't completely agree with the *ebreebuddy's bi* theory, but i know what'cher getting at. the only reason i think that not everyone IS bisexual is because i'd like to think that everyone has this "hidden potential" within them that guides their sexual orientation; and if this is true, then it's possible for things like one's childhood to bring that up and make it evident. in some people, it's less hidden-- (ie) the flamboyant & proud-to-be dykes; but in others, it may never be shown-- like some fella who lives a *stubbornly* straight lifestyle but who had an interest in the bwoy in the corner of the locker-room in 6th grade. see what i'm saying? i think it's present in everybody to feel some kind of affection or attraction to someone of the same sex. whether that's adamantly displayed or not, or at least displayed enough to waiver/question one's identity, depends on the events and reactions of one's lifestyle. but to say that everyone's bi doesn't make much sense to me because there are some of us who never really felt an attraction to those of the opposite sex. ...such as peeps like me (ahem) who just more-or-less used them during the process of coming out, to make themselves believe that they're NOT RILLY gay. complex theory, isn't it? but then again, sexual orientation is based on ideas of a traditional, religious, hetero-, white male society, excluding minority beliefs in order to promote its own. and if society has set these standards, governing one's identity by sexual orientation, then it's enforcing the idea that one must have sex (hetero definition of sex) in order to justify one's like/dislike for the activity. as far as i'm concerned, one just KNOWS and doesn't need to depend on that in order to tell who they are, as far as sexual identities go. one just knows. it's perhaps the environment or the person (nature vs nurture) that gives rise to that hidden potential, in my opinion, and i don't need some corporate, high-class, white, hetero bastard sitting up in his congressional chair to tell me that. one just knows. .....oh, but hanna, i think you've got a great perspective on the issue, nonetheless. it rilly made me think... so thanks. :)

Reply from: sylph on 3/18/98 at 7:59AM. PS- erm, has anybody got a copy of some of Charlotte Bunch's essays? particularly one that's titled, "Lesbians in Revolt." ....i think. maybe that isn't it..? i'm thinking of the one that states that love is based on love rather than love being based on sexual experiences. does anyone have a copy of that? and if so, could'ja e mail me? i'd send you an SASE and prolly some xerox$$ for a copy. i don't get access to stuff like this and the lady who i borrowed the textbook from has left town, before i could borrow it again and copy the essay. so yeh- e mail me PLEASE if you've gotta copy.. i'd love to have one of my own.

Reply from: hanna on 3/18/98 at 11:15AM. i didn't say that i think EVERYBODY is bi, i said the majority of people. of course there are people who have only felt attraction to either the same or the other sex. but i really think that sexuality exists on a spectrum, and that MOST people are somewhere in between completely straight and completely queer. including myself. although i identify as a dyke, i realize that there's probably a little tiny part of me that could potentially be attracted to a boy someday. i also think that where you fall on that spectrum can change over your life, depending on who's in your life, things that happen, the attitudes of people around you regarding homosexuality, etc.

Reply from: sylph on 3/18/98 at 2:28PM. otay.. i understand now. i think we've got purdy similar theories, then, hanna-

Reply from: eyeball on 3/18/98 at 6:18PM. Mary Shelly's husband was Percy Bishy(sp?) Shelly. She wrote that book from a scarey night spent with Mr. Shelly and the infamous Lord Byron (among others). Ken Russel's movie "Gothic" is a wonderfully entertaining fictionalized acount of that night. Watch it, it's a great movie. And this is a great post. thanks, wish I had more time.

back