Reactions to Thorne, 9/4/05
1. For many of you, ThorneÕs observations about childhood
and education really resonated. A
couple of you find her unconvincingÉdoes she place too much emphasis on the
power of teachers to shape gender socialization? Is some of what they are doing
just Òrealistic,Ó Òefficient,Ó common sense? If so, does this diminish the validity of her arguments re:
the construction of gender in schools?
Orah: I appreciate ThorneÕs attempt to pinpoint the origins of this inequality in childhood. Probably because I do not have those memories of childhood, however, I am not convinced and am looking forward to hearing if others, with more vivid memories, are convinced.
Alex: on page 34 thorne says, "other teachers also
peppered their classroom language with gendered terms of address ('you boys be
quiet;' 'girls, sit down;' 'ladies, this isnt a tea party'), implying that
gender defined both behavior and social ties"-- it seems to me that using
gendered terms to keep kids in line simply suggests that a group of kids from
one gender is misbehaving-- if there are three girls standing up, it would be
silly for the teacher to say "you people there, sit down," and if
some boys are being rowdy, telling them specifically to be quiet seems more
effective to me than directing a general "be quiet" to the entire
classroom. i think perhaps thorne was
reading too much into gendered terms in situations like this.
Talya: I
think that this was a rather silly article because the majority of people who
would read this are most likely the choir that she is already preaching to. She
made a conscious effort to raise her children in the most gender neutral way,
at the same time, might that have given them a heightened sense of the
importance of gender and therefore negated the whole process?
I donÕt know whether I am writing this as a devilÕs advocate, whether I believe
it, or whether I donÕt really know what I believe. I simply donÕt think that
itÕs as easy as sheÕs making it. Not all that is going on with children and the
idea of gender is negative. I donÕt think that the idea of gender is bad if
people are aware and able to move fluidly throughout the confines of those
specific genders.
My Q: can we take a step back and consider what her argument is? To my mind, perhaps the most key point: ˆ gender as not just a Òcategory of individual identity,Ó but a Òdimension of social relationsÓ that comes in and out of focus/relevance. IÕm not sure she wants to call it wholly negative or that classrooms are the reason why gender categories exist. Rather, that she is trying to draw attention to the relatively quiet ways in which gender is naturalized Ð not really as a characteristic of persons so much as an aspect of a social context: how does gender become what a situation is Òabout?Ó
ˆ I really like her observation that ÒgenderÓ is produced often in the service of some other activity: the teachers wield these categories for the purposes of social control. It helps them organize an otherwise unwieldy group of children. *So sometimes appearances are deceiving Ð a situation that seems to be ÒaboutÓ gender is also ÒaboutÓ something else entirely, and vice versa! (see theme #4, Patricia) This seems like something important for us to keep in mind...
2. Roles:
what do we mean when we talk about gender Òroles?Ó Are they rigid, or fluid? Binding, or voluntary? When individuals
occupy different roles in relation to one another, does this inevitably mean a
relationship of hierarchy/ domination-submission?
Orah: I think of a role as something that is set, a solid. The unchanging, chained quality of any role bothers me. Is there such a thing as an unbinding role? Being bound seems implicit in the term role. Unless! We are role playing, if we are actors in our roles.
Samantha: Orah asked a great question about power in sexual
relationships and I don't know if there ever is real fluidity of power in
sexual relationships. I think even if two people discuss the roles they wish
to play in a relationship and if equity of power (the question is, what does
power mean?) is important, other factors can strengthen and diminish this.
Amy Phillips: I want to also respond briefly to OrahÕs comment on the dominant and submissive nature of homosexual relationships, which would be cool to talk about in class at some point. What does it mean to be dominant or submissive in a relationship? Is the more masculine of the pair the dominant one? What if both parties are girly or manly (which happens!)? Why does it seem that this is set? I think it was something in the lesbian feminist movement that tried to push for more equality in their relationships: androgyny and such. And then we can always talk about organized dominance and submission, which is consensual, rather than the implicit dominance and submission in most relationships, and, therefore, in my mind, groovy and hot.
This seems like a pretty meaty question to discuss. Perhaps the point I wanted to emphasize re: Òboundary-workÓ fits in here Ð
ˆBoundary-work: mark this anthropological point from Barth. Categories are formed not around a bunch of cultural Òstuff,Ó really, but as a process of boundary-making, where meaning of each group derives from its not being the other. As we can see in Thorne, what this implies is that maintaining boundaries as separate takes work. So that if roles seem rigid, that is partly explained by the way in which their interrelationship is continually being marked, defined, sustainedÉa process more dynamic, perhaps more tenuous, than it would seem?
(Also, that boundaries provoke intense emotions (b/c of that tenuousness), suppressing awareness of cross-cutting phenomena.)
3. Gender asymmetry: why is ÒtomboyÓ different from Òsissy?Ó
Amy Phillips: Why is it that the
boys only have references to sexual orientation, and not the tomboys, since
tomboy is a gender commentary rather than sexual orientation? Does this again
have to do with one of the advantages women have over men in somewhat greater
flexibility in gender expression? I mean, we get to wear pants. I think itÕs
also interesting and problematic how she seems to exclusively use the word
ÒgenderÓ rather than Òsex.Ó I agree with her in that what the children are
expressing is the social construction of gender, but she doesnÕt really seem to
separate the two.
Amy Pennington:
In general, I think I found Thorne's
analysis of gender asymmetry most interesting. That girls are so unevenly
defined as the source of 'contamination' is really interesting, and disturbing.
I really agree with Thorne's conclusion that "the culture of heterosexual
romance needs fundamental reconstruction so that it no longer overshadows other
possibilities for intimacy and sexuality."
Anna: What stuck out most for me in her writing was at the very
end where she draws a line between the teachers and parents of boys and the
teachers and parents of girls. "Perhaps because no specter comparable to
'sissy' and 'fag' reins in imagined alternatives for girls, teachers and
parents of young children seem far less ambivalent abut encouraging androgynny
in their young daughters than in their sons" (169). This sentence comes
after a section on "the problems of aggressive masculinity" and how
we, as a society, attempt to not only build up the strong elements in males,
but also encourage the more sensitive. We do not as easily do this with our
females.
4. Thinking
about the relationship of gender to other categoriesÉ
Patricia: I was extremely intrigued by the anthropologists' claim that female contamination can be used as a source of power. "Male susceptability to female pollution can be experienced as a source of vulnerability; if a girl is designated as having cooties or threatens to plant a dangerous kiss, it is the boy who has to run." (182) I loved it! I think that it's very symbolic of the fluidity of power and gender which is central to Thorne's argument. It's not so much that it's all about gender, but rather that gender is among many other things that make up power relationships. I feel like looking at gender dynamics this way yields positive effects because it doesn't seem so overwhelming and makes change a realistic goal.
Samantha: I also wanted to highlight something Thorne noted that
states, "The topic of children and gender should be considered in close
connection with social class, race, ethnicity, and sexuality and not
artificially stripped from these other contexts." (pg. 9)
|
reactions to thorne |
I am having a hard time recalling Ômemories of genderÕ from my childhood. I
donÕt have many vivid/specific memories of childhood. Most of my childhood
memories are of myself and my younger brother. As Thorne points out, Òin our
culture the model of sisters and brothers offers one of the few powerful images
of relatively equal relationshipsÓ (172). I realize, however, that an instance
of gender is not implicitly negative. I demand change only when gender is used
as a restriction, a handicap, when gender is pivotal point of power
distribution.
Personally, I do not have memories from childhood in which gender was taught as
method of social stratification. Since childhood, however, I have experienced
(and do experience) gender as a key in power distribution. I appreciate ThorneÕs attempt to pinpoint the origins of
this inequality in childhood. Probably because I do not have those memories of
childhood, however, I am not convinced and am looking forward to hearing if
others, with more vivid memories, are convinced.
I am intrigued by this statement of ThorneÕs about sisters and brothers. It
leads me to think that the inequality in relation comes when sex comes into the
picture. Since sex plays much less of a role (or, such a different role)
between siblings, I am not surprised by ThorneÕs statement that this may be the
best model of equal relation.
I am thinking about sex as struggle for power. The problem is the heterosexual
assumption in our society that skews the power distribution even before the
act. The act is inconsequential. The act is hidden and, therefore, is left to
societyÕs imagination (which is guided so carefully by the media? HummÉ) and
created by these imaginings. Even in homosexual relations there is a
heterosexual assumption that one party is dominant and one submissive. The
roles are set. I wonder if there is such a thing as
sex between equal parties É or, more realistically, if there is such a thing as
a sexual relationship in which the distribution of power is absolutely fluid.
This brings me to question the nature of roles. I think of a role as something
that is set, a solid. The unchanging, chained quality of any role bothers me.
Is there such a thing as an unbinding role? Being bound seems implicit in the
term role. Unless! We are role playing, if we are actors in our roles.
|
Female Contamination as Power! |
I thoroughly enjoyed Thorne's ideas. It was very relevant to many experiences
that I had and vividly remember from my childhood or days as a
"kid"--a word that seems to be less derogatory according to Thorne's
observations.
I distinctly remember one time when I was being chased by a bunch of my girl
friends. I had proudly told my friends at the lunch table that I knew where
babies came from and they all were very jealous. My mom had given me "the
talk" that night prior while I was taking a tub. The "talk"
involved the real process of "baby-making" and left me feeling a bit
scared by it all, but I also felt very cool being privy to information of the
"grown-up world" at the age of 11. The chase ensued after lunch since
I wouldn't tell my friends what I knew, but it only included girls. The boys at
the table rolled their eyes and said that they already knew how it happened
although I'm not sure if that was actually the truth. But, similar to Thorne's
analysis, the all-female chase ended only because I got tired and didn't
involve any aggressive activity.
In addition to being entertained by Thorne's ideas by connecting them with my memories
of the past, I was extremely intrigued by the
anthropologists' claim that female contamination can be used as a source of
power. "Male susceptability to female pollution can be experienced
as a source of vulnerability; if a girl is designated as having cooties or
threatens to plant a dangerous kiss, it is the boy who has to run." (182)
I loved it! I think that it's very symbolic of the fluidity of power and gender
which is central to Thorne's argument. It's not so
much that it's all about gender, but rather that gender is among many other
things that make up power relationships. I feel like looking at gender dynamics
this way yields positive effects because it doesn't seem so overwhelming and
makes change a realistic goal.
Gender dynamics is maleable and, as she cites from the teachers that have implemented positive change, is able to be worked with.
|
Boys in skirts |
I really enjoyed Thorne's piece. I think I got a little overzealous in my
highlighting, however.
I've never spent much time thinking back to my elementary school days with an adult mind. When I think of those days, I think with a child's mind, the mind that I had during those days. I think Thorne's piece was good for making me think in an analytical way about what teachers or peers did. For example, I never gave much thought to why teachers assigned seats to us. I was just annoyed that I couldn't sit with friends. But the more I think about our assigned seats now, I more I realize that I can't remember a single time I wasn't seated next to a boy. During lower grades (3rd to 5th grade), we'd sit in groups of four - two tables facing two other tables. And I always ended up next to a boy. I remember this being an ... exhilarating? feeling. I say ÒexhilaratingÓ because I didn't interact with boys very much, so it was strange and exciting to sit next to them in class. It was weird to talk to them. (However, I definitely played chasing games during recess. My three friends and I would chase a group of three boys, and then theyÕd chase us). Now I realize that the teachers must have arranged our seating in order to encourage gender mixing.
I have to mention this one anecdote now, and I think you will see why. In fifth grade, a group of boys started raising hell with our administration. You see, from October to April, shorts weren't allowed in school. But girls could always wear skirts, so on warm days, we'd wear our skirts and be comfortable, but boys would still be smothering in long pants. So, one day, this group of boys .... I think there were five of them É came to school in skirts they had borrowed from their sisters. It caused a HUGE FIT. The class was absolutely disrupted because, wow, boys in skirts. I don't know if we learned anything during that day because we were all so excited.
Near the end of the day, the lower-school principal came into our class to talk to us. I don't remember most of what she said, but I do remember that she said the word "disrespectful" in relation to why the boys shouldn't wear skirts. She said something along the lines of, "It's disrespectful toward their sisters, their females classmates, and their female teachers for the boys to dress like this." I remember thinking it was a weird thing to say then, and it still seems weird to me now. IÕm not exactly sure what conclusion this brings me to. I guess this is an example of the principle clearly stating what boys did and what girls did. There was no gray area, only black and white. Boys didnÕt wear clothing Ð period. And the reason that boys didnÕt wear girlsÕ clothing was that it was Anti-Respectable.
I also remember that the boys didnÕt get a lot of flack from the other boys for wearing the skirts, but I still have the image of one of the boys leaving for the day after the principle talked to us. He looked so ashamed. So that was interesting.
|
Can we play with gender? |
This piece left me with more questions than with a true understanding gender as
it is played out in the playground or school. I found it difficult to get past
certain thoughts, like, are children still so separated on the playground? Do
these gendered roles still occur in classrooms with large numbers of boys
versus girls and vice versa?
Orah asked a great question about power in sexual
relationships and I don't know if there ever is real fluidity of power in
sexual relationships. I think even if two people discuss the roles they wish to
play in a relationship and if equity of power (the question is, what does power
mean?) is important, other factors can strengthen and diminish this.
I also kept thinking about children who for some reason or another are left out
of gender play and how that affects their life as "girl" and
"boy." I can recall from my own experience in grammar school not
wanting to do the things girls did (Barbies, make-up, boyfriends) and how no
matter how hard I tried to do what was considered "boy" activities
(playing baseball/basketball, skateboarding, Legos) someone would
"correct" my behavior by admonishing me to act more like a girl.
Also, my best friend has been a boy for a very long time, since grade school,
and that was also very taboo.
I also wanted to highlight something Thorne noted
that states, "The topic of children and gender should be considered in
close connection with social class, race, ethnicity, and sexuality and not
artificially stripped from these other contexts." (pg. 9)
Are gender roles something you are born with? What happens when you defy what
gender roles are prescribed by your culture/society/family? How does someone
deal with this conflict?
|
Little eyes... |
I shared SarahÕs experience of viewing my Osh Kosh BÕGosh-wearing days in a new
way now that IÕm somewhat more grown-up. When I was in kindergarten and first
grade, the power that the teacher held over me and my classmates was so
prevailing that there was simply no questioning it. Everything that the teacher
did or said seemed to have been so carefully thought out; after all, it was she
(and it was a she for me all the way through elementary school) who got to make
all the decisions in the classroom. I even remember thinking as a 5-year-old
that my teacher had chosen to be ÒmeanÓ, and I suppose that even from an early
age we think of the teacher as a purely rational being. I took it for granted
that there was a good reason for each of her actions.
It seems that the teachers in ThorneÕs article, however, were not the least bit
aware of the actions they were taking in sorting children into groups of ÒboysÓ
and Ògirls.Ó The teachers didnÕt have explanations or reasons for the
separation, maybe because they were all grown-up women, and even a child can
see how different they are from grown-up men.
In my memory, one day I am in the yard with my Dad wearing pants low on my
would-be hips and no shirt helping pick weeds. Then all of the sudden I am in
first grade and a boy is making fun of the way I sit with my legs crossed, so
ladylike.
I think the childÕs capacity to observe and imitate probably accounts for the
rapid change. But why in kindergarten and not preschool or seventh grade? Is
kindergarten when we start putting pressure on children to start acting more
grown up, to become little versions of men and women?
|
models for future behavior,
unfortunately |
this article resonated with a lot of my experiences on the
playground--especially on the kickball field. i remember my third grade
teacher, a curly-haired woman with an upturned nose and a shrill voice, urging
me to go play kickball with the boys. for a long time i was the only girl out
there. i don't know to this day why she wanted me to go play kickball--perhaps
i did not get along with the other girls as well as she would have liked? i do
remember some arguments over what i perceived as injustices on the playground,
come to think of it. i tended to form intense alliances, and became rather
hot-blooded when i felt they were being violated. however, sometimes i spent
all recess reading, so perhaps my teacher just wanted me to be more active? i
do remember playing every day, and getting better, so soon the boys actually
wanted me on their teams, and gave me a nickname: tiny. i was never captain,
but i was a contributor, and soon i began to spit and hike up my pants when i
came up to the plate to kick, just like the boys did. it was an interesting
period for me, and i remember sometimes being amused because i had short hair,
and if i was standing around with a group of boys, i generally was addressed as
a boy...as in "you boys better come in now, recess is over."
cut ahead to last night on the steps of brecon: i had been thinking about the
idea of the male intruding on the territory of the female, disrupting
foursquare and jumprope. my friend maria joked that it was a variation on the
hunter gatherer theme--the men ran out into the grass and traveled far and wide
while the women stayed home near the hearth (or the asphalt, in this case)
until the men returned home to bother them for attention, sex, food, etc....we
were all sitting outside, enjoying the saturday night air. a group of older
guys, i'd say in their late twenties, were sitting outside as well. there were
some incredibly attractive women out there on the steps with me, and the guys
noticed this after a short while and began showing off--their intrusion into
our conversation about the nature of relationships (ironically) took the form
of racist and sexist jokes, told louder and louder until finally, one of my
friends stood up and remarked that we'd be better off inside. the
self-righteous part of me wishes i'd stood up with my arms akimbo and said
something to the effect of "get the hell off our steps," but i
realized in retrospect, it would not have been helpful or productive. (oh, but
it would have felt so good...). the real issue was that these guys were still
modeling (in an even more intense form) the same patterns that the article
discusses. these guys were just as clueless as fourth-graders on the playground
when it came to how to interact with the opposite gender.
just some observations.
|
|
a week or so before i left for school i was at a friend's house, and his little
cousins (between 2 and 8 years old) were there visiting.
"what's your name?" the six year old asked me.
"alex," i told him.
"alex? that's a boys name!!!" he said without even thinking. this
young boy's immediate reaction to learning my name was hilarious to me, though
i was not surprised that he had not learned of the concept of unisex names yet.
changing gears completely...
on page 34 thorne says, "other teachers also peppered their classroom
language with gendered terms of address ('you boys be quiet;' 'girls, sit
down;' 'ladies, this isnt a tea party'), implying that gender defined both
behavior and social ties"-- it seems to me that using gendered terms to
keep kids in line simply suggests that a group of kids from one gender is
misbehaving-- if there are three girls standing up, it would be silly for the
teacher to say "you people there, sit down," and if some boys are
being rowdy, telling them specifically to be quiet seems more effective to me
than directing a general "be quiet" to the entire classroom. i think perhaps thorne was reading too much into gendered
terms in situations like this.
one thing i remember clearly from my few years at public elementary school was
the assigned seating extravaganza. assigned seating was always a big deal, but
the moving of unruly students was even more major. however, in my second grade
class, reassignment of seats usually involved moving a well behaved girl to the
desk next to a poorly behaved boy, as if her good manners would rub off on him.
my teacher seemed to think that if she mixed boys and girls, they would be less
disruptive while sitting next to each other. of course, boys werent the only
unruly kids, but my teacher never moved a boy next to a misbehaving girl... im
not quite sure what that means, except that i ended up getting moved around a
lot. that may have somehting to do with why i switched to private school after
2nd grade (hmm...) anyway...
another small anecdote... when i was in 6th and 7th grade i played on a coed
soccer team. except i was the only girl in the league (ive always thought it
was weird that most soccer leagues for younger kids are divided into all girl's
and coed teams, though there isnt an all boy's league). as a 12 year old girl,
i was taller and more powerful than most boys, who hadnt really started to
develop. this one time i was about to run up to a boy on the opposing team and
steal the ball from him when i heard a man on the sidelines yell "come on,
dont get beat by a girl!" so of course i got the ball, and knocked him
over in the process. i dont think i would have been as offended had another
team member shouted this, but hearing a father, presumably the father of the
boy who i just slide tackled, yelling gender biased comments across a soccer
field really struck me. the basic fact is that there is a period in life when
girls have developed and boys havent, making them able to jump higher, run
faster, or charge with more force, and i guess that father had simply forgotten
that.im not sure what aspect of gender roles i feel is biologically there from
the beginning, and what is learned, but i do feel like it is a mixture of both,
and i think that the stereotype of boys being bigger and stronger than girls is
part of the learned group.
|
the first of many long winded posts |
I definitely identified with a lot of what Thorne had to say about how boys and
girls pit against one another and found these chapters enlightening, confirming
and funny. I was relieved that she didnÕt quantify her research (at least in
the portions that we read) but rather used specific examples to explain larger
themes.
What struck me the most is how important this stage of childrenÕs lives is in
forming their gender identities. My friends say that I have it in for anything
with a permanently attached penis, but really I dislike how socialized males
turn out, rather than the men themselves. I think that until there is
liberation for men from what Thorne calls Òaggressive masculinityÓ women can
not truly be equal. She illustrates this by explaining that as the boys are
lumped into ÒnaughtyÓ groups, they Òdefine themselves in opposition to girlsÓ
and with the pitting of gender against gender, these qualities become
associated with boys being superior to girls (p 169). ItÕs so frustrating and
appalling that some people see boyÕs disruptive behavior as normal, whereas
girls can never be disruptive, because itÕs already unladylike (a word which I
canÕt believe passed my spell checker). She says that some parents worry that
their sons Òwill be taunted by other kidsÓ for being too feminine (p 168). Well,
to these parents I say two things. 1) Oh, heaven forbid that your male child
show some sign that he does not conform to the gender stereotype and might
actually just be a nice person and 2) often times when parents try to shoo away
their children from things because they are afraid it will be hard on the child
only end up messing the child up even more because they donÕt have the support
of their parents and they have to go through years of therapy to be ok with
being themselves again.
Thorn brings up the problem of Òheterosexualized femininity,Ó the labeling of
ÒtomboysÓ, ÒsissiesÓ and ÒfagsÓ, and trans people who donÕt stay in their
assigned gender category, but, as a glaring omission in my mind, she does not
address homosexuals (maybe she does this in another chapter). This probably
harkens back to adults being afraid of turning kids gay or addressing
childrenÕs sexuality, I would argue that children address their own sexuality
in defining their relationships between each other as mortal enemies or potential
mates. Boys are called ÒfagsÓ sometimes if they like to play ÒgirlÓ games,
which is a very interesting link between gender and sexual orientation. Why is it that the boys only have references to sexual
orientation, and not the tomboys, since tomboy is a gender commentary rather
than sexual orientation? Does this again have to do with one of the advantages
women have over men in somewhat greater flexibility in gender expression? I
mean, we get to wear pants. I think itÕs also interesting and problematic how
she seems to exclusively use the word ÒgenderÓ rather than Òsex.Ó I agree with
her in that what the children are expressing is the social construction of
gender, but she doesnÕt really seem to separate the two.
This study also elucidates for me what is wrong with heterosexual
relationships today. From the very beginning, males and females are pitted
against one another. ItÕs no wonder with the war of the sexes that couples
often cannot get along. We are supposedly so different that we cannot understand
each other. But maybe if more teachers did exercises like Porro and Karkau to
bridge the gap between boys and girls, heterosexuality would be more successful
in areas other than procreation. I really wish teachers would realize their
immense power in this situation and do something with it.
I want to also respond briefly to OrahÕs comment on
the dominant and submissive nature of homosexual relationships, which would be
cool to talk about in class at some point. What does it mean to be dominant or
submissive in a relationship? Is the more masculine of the pair the dominant
one? What if both parties are girly or manly (which happens!)? Why does it seem
that this is set? I think it was something in the lesbian feminist movement
that tried to push for more equality in their relationships: androgyny and
such. And then we can always talk about organized dominance and submission,
which is consensual, rather than the implicit dominance and submission in most
relationships, and, therefore, in my mind, groovy and hot. On that
noteÉ!
|
|
Definitely Kudos to Thorne. It is pointless to just say: "well sex is
biological and gender is socially constructed" and then proceed to to have
some type of "intellectual" conversation about how to change the next
generation's outcome. Here is a female anthropologist, and lets not forget a
mother, who sees this problem...most likely worries because her children are
facing these issues, and actually does something about it. Action kids, its all
about action. Academia tends to theorize too much...we should act more.
Because Thorne is right...kids are programed by adults to "behave"
within either a "male" or "female" role...and this is a major
issue. Social acceptance...but more importantly social appearance...is so
ingrained in american society that to go against whatever social norm you are
currently in is a "sin," right? But we must remember that all kids
are not entirely impressionable...and that when they grow up...they will
change. Love her anti-Durkheim stance...but...her arguement still assumes the
very theory that he claims: Social norm will prvail. Maybe if she were to
conduct multiple studies...like...lets say one at an arts-geared school, one at
a public school, and maybe one at a catholic school....probably one at an inner
city school too....then she wouldnt have written from such a one-dimensional
viewpoint...that is really the only criticism i have...
Its hard for me to compare her observation to my own cause they vary so much. I
went to three different middle schools in the time span of two years. One was
catholic, one was public, and the other was a prep-school. Highschool is kinda
a blur too...i spent my first two years at a small catholic highschool...where
yes, i was a cheerleader...and the last two years at a boarding highschool for
the arts...where is wove kimono's on a loom...BIG CHANGE. And now im back here.
The methods of gender construction Thorne was talking about definitely shone
through to me as a kid...but thats only because i spent my entire grade school
years at a Catholic school. See...the problem i have is that she only writes to
people to are from middle to upper middle classes....and yes...this is why we
get so excited reading her. But if we were less fortunate....lets say like...we
didnt go to haverford and bryn mwar and spent out childhoods not in school too
much because we had to take care of drunken relatives or something....and when
we were in school the teachers didnt care about creating a gendered
environment...cause most public schools teachers care more about the kids
actually attending...then...yeah...we probably wouldnt understand her as much.
But she is right...whatever economic,religious, or ethnic education environment
you are in, gender is always there...like a big cloud. And the
teachers/administration would be like...the rain. From the cloud.
I guess her work reminded me of the family dinner metaphor...
|
Thorne's "Gender Play" |
IÕve been debating how to express my views on this article. In many ways, I
agreed with Thorne: gender is socialized, age is constructed, etc. However, I
do also feel that she is creating a world that she wants to see and ignoring
vital aspects of reality.
I am all about being an empowered woman, at the same time I ask my Daddy to
come kill a spider for me; I am more than willing to do hard physical labor and
yet I can not imagine ever proposing to a man: I want him to propose to me.
Part of the reason that I am who I am is because IÕm a girl. I am more socially
conventional than many people in the Bi-Co which is often hard because I am
labeled as anti-feminist and so on (which, by the true definition of a feminist
is about as far from the truth as possible).
I think that this was a rather silly article because the majority of people who
would read this are most likely the choir that she is already preaching to. She
made a conscious effort to raise her children in the most gender neutral way,
at the same time, might that have given them a heightened sense of the
importance of gender and therefore negated the whole process?
I donÕt know whether I am writing this as a devilÕs advocate, whether I believe
it, or whether I donÕt really know what I believe. I simply donÕt think that
itÕs as easy as sheÕs making it. Not all that is
going on with children and the idea of gender is negative. I donÕt think that
the idea of gender is bad if people are aware and able to move fluidly
throughout the confines of those specific genders.
My one main question about this article is about children in religious or
magnet schools of sorts. Are there different effects and different perspectives
depending on where the school is and what kind of school it is?
|
Thorne's Analysis |
While Thorne's analysis did remind me of some of my own childhood experiences,
I found her more brief thoughts on "the fall" which occurs in girls
in adolescence and on the dominating role of romantic heterosexual
relationships in the lives of college-aged women most relevant to my own life.
I would love to read more about "the fall" that she mentions, as it affected
me immensely in middle school. Up through fifth grade, I was the kind of girl
always crossing the gender lines, standing up for the kids who got teased, and
speaking my mind without a second thought. Then I hit sixth grade and became,
in hindsight, an almost completely different person. I have wondered a bit
about this before, and to what extent I have recovered from that 'fall,' but
Thorne's analysis really pinned down a lot of my feelings and thoughts on that
time of life. I also realize what a dominant role my romantic relationships
used to and still do play in my social life, to the extent that I am still
working on developing a group of close female friends--does that mean that I
still haven't recovered from that fall? And is it possible to make some kind of
compromise between forsaking romantic relationships and submitting completely
to them, while still building lasting, deep connections with other women?
I am interested in the extent to which other women in this class feel that what
Thorne refers to as "emphasized feminity" on page 170 has an effect
on their own behavior and feelings towards themselves. I know it has a huge
effect on my life, and I wonder how I got socialized into the perception that
women out to work hard to please their men. I remember thinking, when watching
shows on tv in like 3rd or 4th grade, and when my friends began dating in
seventh, whenever I would see a couple fighting over something, or a woman not
doing what a man would want, I would think, "I'll never have that problem,
because I'll be a better girlfriend/wife/etc. than that." What led me to
conclude as a kid that the evasion of all conflict was the job of a woman in
her relationship to men?
In general, I think I found Thorne's analysis of
gender asymmetry most interesting. That girls are so unevenly defined as the
source of 'contamination' is really interesting, and disturbing. I really agree
with Thorne's conclusion that "the culture of heterosexual romance needs
fundamental reconstruction so that it no longer overshadows otherpossibilities
for intimacy and sexuality." What I want to think about, and hear from
others, is how we can go about changing the ways in which this faulty culture
pervades our own lives, our behaviors and our self-perceptions.
|
Thorne Post |
Thorne's words bring forth many memories of recess and in-class situations
where I was faced with the opposite sex. Chasing games, though mine never ended
in a kiss, and classroom activities of "boys-against-the-girls" or
"girls-against-the-boys" were common. Though I was always the girl
desperate to be playing football with the boys during recess, I can still
remeber the sting of being picked last - thinking to myself "I can catch
better than some of those guys, how is it I didn't get picked before they
did?!"
Through my growing up years, my mother has done a very good job keeping me
aware and conscious of everything from gender-based-separation/segregation at
recess to sexism in the classroom and everything in between. Though I can
recognize with ease Thorne's observations of classroom "happenings"
where teachers favor boys over girls, I can't help but take a step back and
think about what kind of information these kids are receiving at home. What are
the messages their parents are sending them about what it means to be a
"boy" or a "girl"?
I was always encouraged to be playing sports, painting, playing dress-up,
shaving my barbies' heads, and reading. I'm not the "average" girl
(but what BMC/HC woman is - let's get real here!). I grew up assuming I would
always be horseback riding AND putting on makeup because it was fun turning my
face into a canvas - even if all I was going to do was wash the makeup off and
go to sleep.
What stuck out most for me in her writing was at the very end where she draws a
line between the teachers and parents of boys and the teachers and parents of
girls. "Perhaps because no specter comparable
to 'sissy' and 'fag' reins in imagined alternatives for girls, teachers and
parents of young children seem far less ambivalent abut encouraging androgynny
in their young daughters than in their sons" (169). This sentence
comes after a section on "the problems of aggressive masculinity" and
how we, as a society, attempt to not only build up the strong elements in
males, but also encourage the more sensitive. We do not as easily do this with
our females.
Over the summer, I worked at a co-ed, horseback-riding summercamp, teaching
lessons. My students all happened to be girls (though I called them
"ladies" and told them never to use "guys" as a sexless
group term) ranging in age from about 8-13. My biggest frustration was their
lack of aggression. I can remember taking riding lessons when I was 8 and
feeling hungry, determined, strong, and aggressive. I didn't care about falling
off - I wanted to RIDE! Everyday at camp, some girl didn't "want to",
they were "scared", they "didn't feel well", their horse
was "too big", their horse "had ugly teeth", their horse
"was mean" or "looking at [her] funny"...the list never
ceased. I couldn't figure out (even after 8 weeks of working there) how to get
my girls to be more aggressive - to somehow communicate to them that it was a
good thing to be strong. It was even a good thing to fall off and realize you
were ok and get back on - that the gritty, scrappy attitude would be what would
eventually make them better riders. I didn't get through to all of them, but
it's something I think about often and Thorne's words hit me in the face. We
don't always raise our girls to be tough. We raise them to be smart, beautiful,
delicate beings - but strong isn't always on the list...and it (duh) should be.
So what I came away with was this: if I decide to have children I need to be as
awake as possible when I raise them. There can be no naps for the mom who wants
her son to be strong and sensitive, smart and funny, intense and relaxed or her
daughter to be strong and sensitive, smart and funny, intense and relaxed. I
read Thorne's article almost as an advertisement or plea for better parenting -
that in order to have wonderful women and men/men and women we need to start
with them as thoughts in our brains or ripples in our ovaries (what a
concept!). That it's just as important to raise wonderful men as it is to raise
wonderful women and it's our job to do just that.
I feel like I could write forever...but I've already written a lot...