The news has been all over that photograph, and if I roll my eyes any more, they’re going to fall out. It’s nail polish. Seriously, if that’s the worst thing happening in our country this week, the most newsworthy event while we’re at war with 2 or 3 countries and a gazillion people are out of work and gas prices are over $4 a gallon, then…well, I don’t know. I think it’s a crazy example of skewed priorities in the media.
I bought my son dolls and trucks. He ran over the dolls with the trucks, making exciting crashing noises and explosions Oooookay. Whatever, he’s having fun.
I bought my daughter dolls and trucks. She uses the trucks as dollstrollers. Oooookay. Whatever, she’s having fun.
Kids don’t learn gender roles by the toys we buy them or the colors they wear on their toenails or their backs. They learn gender roles by watching Mom(s) and Dad(s). When Mom can’t remove a spider from the living room, they learn something about the “weakness” of women. When Dad can’t cook a meal, they learn something about the “ineptness” of men. Those are the lessons we should be paying more attention to, not nail polish.
An excellent response, since it now shifts the burden to the other side to explain why they feel that boys should be steered to “traditional” male roles.
And I’ll wait to see if anyone has such a case to make. For what it’s worth, I agree with this formulation of yours: let kids naturally gravitate towards whatever activites (or colors!) they like, stepping in only if there appear to be some sort of deleterious effects in play.
Yes, but I’ll point out that seventy-five years ago, there were valid reasons to discourage early sexual relationships with boys – not the least of which was the lack of available and reliable contraception everywhere.
The weird thing is that I think a male toddler getting nail polished by a female relative and everyone having a good chuckle is pretty close to a universal experience (which is probably why the put it in the ad). After all, when your a toddler you spend a lot of time hanging out with women, and your pretty much guaranteed to be hanging around at least once when they apply nail polish and want to participate, since painting your fingers crazy colors is the kind of thing that seems awesome when your 4. And I’m guessing most mothers help their kids go ahead and paint their nails since a) why not, b) its kinda funny and c) it gives them something to do for a few minutes.
So I’ll go ahead and assert that a lot of the people having a fit about the ad probably had their nails done at some point when they were little kids.
When I was a kid, I wanted to wear fingernail polish, because I looked up to my older sibling (a sister) and wanted to emulate her. It was a phase I grew out of at about age five, and nowadays, I’m 100% heterosexual, so it certainly didn’t turn me gay or anything.
The real problem with the article in the OP is that it’s hypocritical: On the one hand, it’s decrying early sexualization of children (especially girls), but on the other, the rigidly-enforced gender roles it proposes for children is a form of sexualization.
Exactly. And, if the kid is an average kid, eventually he picks up on those chuckles, realizes his sister doesn’t get chuckles, and he stops asking for neon pink nail polish. Kindergartners HATE being chuckled at - and they’re at the age when gender roles are as rigid among their peer group as any mosque in Saudi Arabia. And so the gender roles *are *enforced, by kids’ realization of adults’ reaction to gender bending, at the time when the kid’s development is ready for it, and not before.
My daughter has started the “boy’s toy” thing now, which makes me grit my teeth, but I find it’s better to ask her to defend that assumption than to lecture her about it. And when she wants to play with a “boy’s toy”, it’s not the time for a lecture, it’s time to encourage her play with it so she realizes for herself that toys don’t have gender requisites.
The fact of the matter, is that everyone thinks males are superior to females(even females/mothers/wives think this way). The masculine is superior to the feminine. That is why parents are proud and brag of their daughters who are tomboys, daughters who play sports, daughters who hunt, fish, and ride horses, daughters who wear pants instead of skirts, daughters who are tough and self independent. It is admirable to aspire to or act like a male. It is ok for anyone to aspire to or to copy behavior that is superior, but it is an abomination for anyone to want to be inferior.
On the other hand, parents are ashamed of their sons who act feminine because femininity and females are** inferior**. It is shameful for a son to wear dresses, wear makeup, play with dolls, and act girly, etc.
Husbands love mannish wives who hunt, fish, play baseball, go to drag races, and watch sports along with them, but, no woman wants a husband who is girly and wears skirts and acts feminine.
You can forget all those studies, you can forget everything any psychiatrist tells you… because… Until, and unless, parents are equally proud of their girly feminine sons in dresses as they are of their tomboy daughters, then females will never be the equal of males, gender equality is impossible, and traditional roles will never change.
.
Susann…might actually have a point. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (I kid, Susann, I kid. )
However I think rather than making moms be proud of their dress-wearing sons, we should work more on changing/expanding the role of what it means to be female and male. There is no reason hunting/fishing/sports has to be an exclusive masculine domain.
Not true at all. I don’t; I don’t even consider the question very meaningful, since there’s no objective “ideal human” that you can measure each gender against to see which is closer. Men are stronger; women have a more aggressive immune system. Which is the superior quality? Well, that depends if the problem is a plague or a heavy object.
Because for so very long, females were coerced into not doing so. And because many of those behaviors - like independence - aren’t “male” behaviors, they are “not a second class citizen” behaviors.
correlation is not causation. Here is an alternative explanation: American men generated such an enormous wealth through industrial and technological progress in 1930-1960 period that a lot of it could then be spent (wasted) on giving women sinecure jobs in government, education, corporate bureaucracies etc. That wealth also translated into American military power at the time.
was life better for Americans in 1960 than it is now? I mean, duh! Why do you think they keep talking about those evil elderly white dudes who just cannot accept that their country is no more? Do you think you know more about quality of life then than they do?
Strength of economy can be described by many parameters. It is my understanding that no one in his right mind considers Japan of 2011 to be less long term economically stable and prosperous than America of 2011. And they do have the money to lend to Obama, no?
Who is Japan indebted to, btw? Is that the traditional China? To Germany? Or maybe to themselves?
China is traditional and also poor. Poor countries often have lots of women employed, if only on the farm. America had lots of women employed when it was poorer, e.g. before WW1. And those were not sinecure jobs either.
Since humans aren’t blank slates it seems like a senseless effort either way.
What was the name of the boy many years ago who had the botched circumcision and his parents/doctors pretended he was a girl? I don’t think that ended well.
Honestly, it terrifies me that the same people who don’t even question why or how or when a certain culture started equating pink with feminine are the same ones who apply this lack of curiosity or perspective to anything else unquestionable and ‘traditional’ (domestic chores, athleticism, sexuality). And don’t give me the bull about women needing to forage for berries.
I read once (and it came from a baby book, so it might be utter bullshit) that in some historic cultures (Scots, maybe? Or Irish?) pink was the traditional “boy’s” color because if you wanted your baby boy to grow up to be a badass warrior or hunter, you’d dip a rag in blood, wring it out so it wouldn’t drip, and hang it over his cradle. The rag, of course, would be pink.
And in many Christian cultures, blue has been a girl’s color, because of its associations with the Virgin Mary.
Colors are a ridiculously arbitrary and ephemeral thing to hang gender identity on.
Pedant.
I dunno, maybe they changed the rag every day? Maybe it was just for the naming or baby blessing or something? Don’t ask me, woman! Go make me dinner!
)