Our society markets cultural gender references to the extent that we instill into girls a dislike of “traditionally male” interests from early on.
So could one say that we do need to focus on girls, to the extent that we recognize the socialization they receive in a society where gender roles are a thing? I agree with the article in general -- though I don't see anything wrong with programs for girls who have already found themselves teenaged and without the resources to get the necessary programming/STEM experience, and/or being uncomfortable around teenage boys in a field that the boys have been taught is their turf.
The media should promote some more female STEM role models. It would make up for the years of degredation and exclusion of women in STEM on TV, in the movies, etc -- especially in kid's media, where girls and women are usually token side-characters when they aren't princesses (see reelgirl.com for thorough documentation). It'll never happen, of course, despite that it would hurt no one, because the necessary critical thinking, along with the knowledge of women's history, to keep ourselves from shouting "gender bias!!!" at anything helping women succeed, is absent.
I wonder if anyone has done a longitudinal study of children raised in environments where they were strongly incentivized (to put it mildly) to favor activities that we typically see taken up by members of the opposite sex. No IRB would approve this nowadays, but maybe someone started one back in the day?
Even without such a study it should be intuitive that steering neurotypical (in the broad sense) boys toward typically female preferences and activities, and vice versa, will end up being cruel along some margin.
(Just as it's certainly cruel for an atypical girl to be forced into typically female behaviors and preferences, which is what you're describing.)
NYU sociologist Emily Kane's book The Gender Trap documents the closest we'll probably get to a study that explores that notion, in this century. I highly recommend it http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=11234
The synopses of the book that are on the internet don't inform of the degree to which it's an actual study by a sociologist; it's not a pop-parenting book.
Given our ignorance, though, and the likelihood that along some margin or another this becomes a zero-sum game between the atypical and the typical, I'd rather see a little less swashbuckling from the more aggressive advocates of undoing gender expectations. Much of this looks like surgery by sledgehammer to me.
"Gender expectations" (in other words, gender) are killing and hurting women and always have. Gender needs to go, ASAP. Instead of getting all theory-of-oppression on you, here's some real examples I think about when I think about why.
You're thinking in partial equilibrium. I've no doubt that many women suffer under the yoke of gender expectations that are at odds with their biology. So do men. And even now, somewhere, there are women who suffer because of gender expectations you'd no doubt be in favor seeing made the norm.
But a world in which your vision ("Gender needs to go" == "your conception of gender norms needs to go") is realized is one where many more suffer similarly oppressive expectations. And anywhere in between we're making tradeoffs that are costly to someone on some margin.
Somewhat relatedly: "Theor[ies] of oppression" would be all the more compelling if the humanists and sociologists who peddle them for a living bothered (or had the training) to think in terms of general equilibria.
I have never heard of "training [] to think in terms of general equilibria". Where does one acquire such training? Is there a YouTube channel for that?
Men benefit directly from how women suffer under gender. Did you read any of the articles? The only reason any of that occurs is for the benefit of the men in the society. The demand is for girls/women to "make themselves sexy," sexy being defined as appealing to straight men's sexuality. The idea of "oppression" has always implied an oppressor class -- attempting to revise the idea as to not include you and I in the class is only expected, though. "Sociologists"? Try Marx.
I don't "favor" any gender expectations. I don't know what you're referring to. The worldwide conception of gender, facets of which is illustrated by the articles, needs to go -- you can read what this would be like in the short essay "Imagining a World without Gender" by Judith Lorber [1].
Comments
Our society markets cultural gender references to the extent that we instill into girls a dislike of “traditionally male” interests from early on.
So could one say that we do need to focus on girls, to the extent that we recognize the socialization they receive in a society where gender roles are a thing? I agree with the article in general -- though I don't see anything wrong with programs for girls who have already found themselves teenaged and without the resources to get the necessary programming/STEM experience, and/or being uncomfortable around teenage boys in a field that the boys have been taught is their turf.
The media should promote some more female STEM role models. It would make up for the years of degredation and exclusion of women in STEM on TV, in the movies, etc -- especially in kid's media, where girls and women are usually token side-characters when they aren't princesses (see reelgirl.com for thorough documentation). It'll never happen, of course, despite that it would hurt no one, because the necessary critical thinking, along with the knowledge of women's history, to keep ourselves from shouting "gender bias!!!" at anything helping women succeed, is absent.
I wonder if anyone has done a longitudinal study of children raised in environments where they were strongly incentivized (to put it mildly) to favor activities that we typically see taken up by members of the opposite sex. No IRB would approve this nowadays, but maybe someone started one back in the day?
Even without such a study it should be intuitive that steering neurotypical (in the broad sense) boys toward typically female preferences and activities, and vice versa, will end up being cruel along some margin.
(Just as it's certainly cruel for an atypical girl to be forced into typically female behaviors and preferences, which is what you're describing.)
The question is, where's the margin?
NYU sociologist Emily Kane's book The Gender Trap documents the closest we'll probably get to a study that explores that notion, in this century. I highly recommend it http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=11234
The synopses of the book that are on the internet don't inform of the degree to which it's an actual study by a sociologist; it's not a pop-parenting book.
Thanks for the tip! I'll check it out.
Given our ignorance, though, and the likelihood that along some margin or another this becomes a zero-sum game between the atypical and the typical, I'd rather see a little less swashbuckling from the more aggressive advocates of undoing gender expectations. Much of this looks like surgery by sledgehammer to me.
"Gender expectations" (in other words, gender) are killing and hurting women and always have. Gender needs to go, ASAP. Instead of getting all theory-of-oppression on you, here's some real examples I think about when I think about why.
http://phonaesthetica.com/2014/02/21/heres-how-it-ends/
http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-i...
http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-b...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-25138455
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jan...
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/report_many_girls_view_sexua...
You're thinking in partial equilibrium. I've no doubt that many women suffer under the yoke of gender expectations that are at odds with their biology. So do men. And even now, somewhere, there are women who suffer because of gender expectations you'd no doubt be in favor seeing made the norm.
But a world in which your vision ("Gender needs to go" == "your conception of gender norms needs to go") is realized is one where many more suffer similarly oppressive expectations. And anywhere in between we're making tradeoffs that are costly to someone on some margin.
Somewhat relatedly: "Theor[ies] of oppression" would be all the more compelling if the humanists and sociologists who peddle them for a living bothered (or had the training) to think in terms of general equilibria.
I have never heard of "training [] to think in terms of general equilibria". Where does one acquire such training? Is there a YouTube channel for that?
Men benefit directly from how women suffer under gender. Did you read any of the articles? The only reason any of that occurs is for the benefit of the men in the society. The demand is for girls/women to "make themselves sexy," sexy being defined as appealing to straight men's sexuality. The idea of "oppression" has always implied an oppressor class -- attempting to revise the idea as to not include you and I in the class is only expected, though. "Sociologists"? Try Marx.
I don't "favor" any gender expectations. I don't know what you're referring to. The worldwide conception of gender, facets of which is illustrated by the articles, needs to go -- you can read what this would be like in the short essay "Imagining a World without Gender" by Judith Lorber [1].
[1] http://paste.pound-python.org/show/QGJwDfVVulEjLTdEmdmU/