Confronting Gender Anxiety

  25 By Caryl Rivers & Rosalind C. Barnett 26 Edweek.org. 27 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/05/37rivers.h30. 28 29 30 As their children head back to school, the question of gender is on the minds of 31 many parents. Why? Recent—and widely circulated—news stories have focused 32 on individuals and schools grappling with the question of gender stereotypes. 33 This past spring, a Toronto couple trying to raise a “genderless” child became a 34 media sensation. Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, refused to reveal 35 whether their 4-month-old baby, Storm, is male or female. They say they want 36 their child to avoid society’s rigid gender norms. 37 38 Meanwhile, in Sweden, the Egalia preschool has banished the words “girl” and 39 “boy,” and the 33 kids are addressed as “friends.” In the same spirit, the school 40 forgoes the words “him” and “her”—”han” or “hon” in Swedish—replacing them 41 with a newly minted Swedish word, the genderless “hen.” 42 43 One can sympathize with the motives of the parents in the first case, without 44 endorsing such a radical step. The crucial distinction, overlooked by these 45 parents, is that biological sex, a genetic given, is not the same as gender, a 46 flexible social construct. Today, girls play rugby, and boys wear earrings. 47 Increasingly, knowing a child’s sex does not tell you whether that child is going to 48 do well in athletics, excel in math, or be the class president. 49 50 The Egalia school’s strategy may also be shortsighted. The school is legitimately 51 concerned about the pervasive tendency to fit children into restrictive female or 52 male “boxes.” Although the school is trying to minimize this process, its approach 53 is unlikely to have real long-term effects. After all, children are in school only a 54 relatively few hours a day, but they’re exposed to gendered messages all day, 55 every day. 56 57 Indeed, stereotypes exert considerable force. Like it or not, we all carry false 58 gender stereotypes inside our heads, probably unconsciously. For example, from 59 very early on, mothers may discourage girls from taking risks by routinely 60 underestimating their daughters’ abilities. In the study “Gender Bias in Mothers’ 61 Expectations About Infant Crawling” published in 2000, 11-month-old babies 62 were allowed to crawl down a carpeted slope that had adjustable angles. 63 Mothers thought that their daughters would avoid the steep slopes, while their 64 sons would be fearless. But they were wrong. Boys and girls didn’t differ much. In 65 fact, the girl babies tended to be a bit more daring. 66 67 We’ve known for a long time that stereotypes have staying power. Indeed, 68 there’s solid scientific evidence that gender stereotypes can put children in 69 cognitive and emotional straitjackets. In 1980, stories about a male “math gene” 70 were rampant in the news media. A study of highly gifted math students in a 71 special program found that boys outperformed girls. 72 73 74 Since both sexes shared the same classrooms, it was suggested that girls’ 75 poorer scores must be due to their genetic makeup, not to cultural factors. But 76 critics pointed out that boys and girls did not share the same experiences. 77 Parents of talented boys bought their sons special toys and books to heighten 78 their math skills and encouraged them to pursue the field. Parents of talented 79 girls, on the other hand, did not take such actions. 80 The “math gene” faded from scientific view. But a longitudinal study, “Gender 81 Differences in Math Ability: The Impact of Media Reports on Parents,” 82 published by University of Michigan researchers five years later, in 1985, found 83 that the math gene notion had “legs.” 84 85 Mothers who knew about the media stories lowered their expectations of their 86 daughters’ math capabilities. This study was important because it linked a 87 specific media narrative to mothers’ actual attitudes toward their daughters. 88 89 It’s not only girls who suffer from stereotypes. Harvard psychologist William 90 Pollack, the author of the classic and important book Real Boys, points out that 91 as early as 2nd grade, a stifling “boy culture” can erode the “interpersonal” skills 92 that come naturally to boys. Pollack reports in his book that boy babies are 93 actually more expressive and vocal than girl babies. “We now have executives 94 paying $10,000 a week to learn emotional intelligence. These [sessions] actually 95 target skills boys were born with.” 96 97 However, parents don’t have to raise a “genderless” child to counter stereotypes. 98 In recent years, we have broadened what’s possible for girls and boys, and 99 parents can point their kids to many models in their everyday life. 100 101 One example of parent power comes from “Female Teachers' Math Anxiety 102 Impacts Girls’ Math Achievement,” a revealing study from the University of 103 Chicago, published in 2009, of 1st and 2nd graders. It found that female 104 elementary school teachers who lack confidence in their own math skills may 105 pass their anxiety along to the girls they teach. The more anxious teachers were 106 about their own math skills, the more likely their female students were to score 107 low in math achievement. 108 109 But there is a silver lining in this story for parents. Even if your daughter has a 110 teacher with high math anxiety, it’s not inevitable that she’s going to have 111 problems with math. Teachers’ anxiety alone didn’t do the damage. Only if girls 112 already had a belief that “girls aren’t good at math” did their achievement suffer. 113 However, girls who didn’t buy into the stereotype didn’t tumble into an 114 achievement gulf. It turns out that parents (or others) can “vaccinate” girls against 115 stereotypes. 116 117 Parents should realize that when they fall prey to gender stereotypes, they are 118 actually shaping what kind of brains their children will eventually have. Boys who 119 are told they are naturally nonverbal will read less, and their verbal abilities may 120 indeed be stunted. Girls who believe they can’t do math will shy away from math 121 and science—even if they in fact do well in these areas. 122 123 The brain is a constantly changing organ. Rebecca Jordan-Young, a women’s 124 studies professor at Barnard College, says that people who cling to gender 125 stereotypes misunderstand the complexities of biology and the dynamic nature of 126 the ways the brain grows and is influenced. In her recent book Brain Storm, she 127 notes: “Brains develop only in interaction; input from the external world ... is as 128 critical to the development of [the] brain as food and water are to the entire 129 organism.” 130 131 The Toronto couple and the Egalia school were right to start thinking about 132 gender issues early in children’s lives. We know that by age 2, kids already have 133 ideas about “gender appropriate” behavior. Given how pervasive gender 134 stereotypes are, it’s not realistic to think that parents or teachers can totally 135 isolate children from them. A better strategy may be to fortify kids against these 136 messages by arming them with the self-confidence to make whatever choices 137 they want, regardless of their biological sex.