challenging stereotypes help please

[5madthings]

Had a bit of a debate about stereotypes yesterday, it followed a discussion about children's behaviour, well girls friendship issues to be precise.

The consensus was that the behaviour was just what girls do. Girls are bitchy, snide, manipulative, nasty Etc.

I bloody hate stereotyping, especially negative ones such as these, so called them on it. Talked about socialisation. The language being used to describe children!

But the reaction was one of defensiveness and repeated assertions that this was their experience. It was also said that it's lazy to put it all down to social conditioning.

I don't know why there is so much defensiveness re stereotypes, why do people want to reinforce them? In this case it was all mums talking about girls.

It saddens me I guess, what hope is there if parents are reinforcing these ideas?

So some good arguments against these stereotypes?

And also why is the language about girls and these stereotypes so negative, it's horrible. There are no equivalent terms for boys? The ones for boys I can think of, wimp, gay, etc are all words that describe feminine traits in a negative way. How has language evolved this way?

I am not saying there are no differences between the sexes,maybe there are but a lot of it is socialised. Do these stereotypes vary around the world? I read how in ancient Greece to be seen as emotional was a good thing, to cry was to be manly! So the opposite of now. Any others like that?

Yet they are so engrained and if you challenge them you are met with resistanice.

Why are we so keen to put people in boxes and reinforce negative stereotypes, as far as I can see they only do harm, reinforce prejudice?

[5madthings]

I know that some of the lovely ladies involved in the debate read here, so waves

[museumum]

In the context you were in does it matter if it's innate or socialised? I find it easier to ignore that argument as I don't think it helps.
If girls are having friendship issues then whether or not they are socialised to be sneakily manipulative to get ahead or whether it's innate it needs to be stopped. Just as if it were boys who had been socially conditioned to beat each other up physically to get ahead.

I object strongly to using words to describe girls that are different when describing the same behaviour in boys (eg bossy vs leader) but if the behaviour itself is undesirable - manipulation of others feelings then it does need to be labelled with a negative description imo.

[5madthings]

Fine label behaviour, but not the children and yes it does matter if it's socialised or not as by just saying that's how girls are you are essentially saying you can't change it. It's a cop out. And I think it's actually really horrible for a group of adults to talk about children in this way. The behaviour is not Ok, usual issues of a friendship group of three abd one being left out. Not nice at all, bit to simply say it's the way girls are is nor helpful.

And the constant reinforcing of the stereotypes is damaging do yrs it does natter. Or should we just never call it out, we wouldn't put up with its someone said all blacks are violenter thugs, it's the same thing imo.

[5madthings]

Ha I was hoping you would pop up buffy I read the feminist forum a lot but mainly lurk.

I always feel a I can't articulate myself very well. You are always very good at debating the point. I did suggest it was worth reading the feminist forum on mnet but it was felt that it was exclusive, and one sided.

[VashtaNerada]

Oh this drives me mad! DD was having some problems with friends and when I raised it with the teacher she said "six year old girls are little minxes"

[museumum]

I think you misunderstand me, I am not avoiding the nature/nurture argument in order to allow the behaviour or condone it, the exact opposite in fact. I am saying I avoid getting bogged down in it in order to concentrate on stopping the behaviour as my experience is that in real life nobody ever wins a nature/nurture argument.

People say fist-fighting is "how boys are" but all reasonable adults still stop them doing it!

I certainly would call out anybody saying "it's how girls are" if that was an expression of intent to do nothing, accept the behaviour and not help guide our young women in navigating social relationships with kindness and empathy.

[5madthings]

Well yes you still need to deal with the actual behaviour and nor just the stereotyping, but when calling them on it it turned into a bit of a debate. The consensus was that's just how girls are and best to accept that. I don't think it is how girls are and think you can combine dealing with behaviour like this with combating the stereotypes iyswim.

Ime kids that are mean are often the ones that lack self confidence, it's worth looking at why they behave as they do. I tend to tell mine to kill them with kindness, be nice and not rise to meanness. I gave other advice like fostering other friendships etc and was sympathetic to the situation. So didn't focus solely on the stereotyping iyswim.

But it's almost like it's just seen as par for the course that this is what will happen as that's how girls are. That's a really depressing thought. And it's not true.

[scallopsrgreat]

I think the adjectives they were using to describe the children were so adult as well. I hate hate hate the word manipulative anyway but even more so when aimed at a child. It is almost always aimed at girls for a start. In fact all the adjectives were sexist.

I see it at my eldest's school and even in pre-school. Girls friendships are held in much greater esteem, they are much more important/required than boy's friendships. Girls pick up on this so there is a greater weight attached to who they are friends with and the meaningfulness of that friendship. Boys are allowed greater leeway to be friends with lots of people and not play with them sometimes. Girls are peacemakers, the ones encouraged to speak to the lonely child etc etc. This is all coming from adults.

And of course the constant reinforcing of stereotypes matters. We are telling girls they need to value friendships, that their worth is tied up in being friendly and when they use immature ways of maintaining friendships and dealing with emotions such as jealousy or hurt we call them manipulative, bitchy, snidey and sneaky. Just lovely!

[grimbletart]

Buffy is so right. I think there is an issue of children living up, or down, to adult expectations involved as well. Label a sex and guess what? They will tend to affirm expectations because you notice the behaviour you are stereotyping. A sort of confirmation bias. You don't notice the scores of times when they are not acting to stereotype.

As to whether it is innate or learned. I can only speak of my own two DDs. When they were small the last thing they were was manipulative or bitchy. They were far more likely to bop someone and then forget about it (not defending bopping by the way) than to bitch or manipulate. They were very straightforward - a attribute stereotypers tend to confer on boys. Why was that I wonder? Could it possibly be because I and DH didn't confer the stereotype on them, or was it simply their character? Who knows?

[5madthings]

Yes I haven't noticed my kids conforming to gender stereotypes. I have four boys and one girl. I hate the boys will be boys nonsense. One of my boys actively goes against stereotypes, loves all things pink and dressing up. He is ten and hasn't grown out of it as I was told he would. He is a sensitive, polite and caring boy. Ds1 is,geeky, smart, hates all sport. Ds3 loves sport but has great empathy, generous to a fault. I guess Ds4 could be seen as a 'typical boy' loves super hero's, and his teacher has described him as such..

Dd is only four but seems just like the boys at that age in many ways, likes pink and dinosaurs abd rough and tumble but also drawing and crafts etc. She can be a right little thug if she doesn't get her own way. Interestingly she is only rough/thuggish with her brothers, and I never let any of mine get away with it. They are all just individuals as far as i can see.

But last week dd and I were kicking a ball backwards and forwards to each other in the playground. So many comments, oh you can tell she has four big brothers, as clearly girls only like football if they have brothers. The irony is my boys don't like football! Ds1 and Ds4 positively hate it, ds3 will take it or leave it. Ds2 likes it more but prefers basketball or riding his bike.

With regards to being manipulative all of my kids have tried to play dp and I off against each other, and failed! Kids can be sneaky,they will try and push boundaries, it's how they learn and not innate to a specific gender.

[uglyswan]

I can't get my head around the argument that "it's lazy to put it all down to social conditioning" - surely addressing social conditioning as a factor contributing to be children's behaviour is addressing a factor that can be changed? Isn't that what the whole nature vs nurture discussion boils down to? Learned behaviour can be questioned, challenged and unlearned, provided you take the time and thought to make a targeted effort to do so. Wheareas if behaviour is "natural", then it is presumably more or less immutable, so we might as well not bother. Which argument is the lazy one here?

[LurcioAgain]

Picking up on Buffy's point about this is what children are like - variable individuals with a variety of behaviours, but confirmation bias in adults leads us to ascribe gender judgements on the behaviour. My seven-year-old's social circle seems to involve all the behaviours - best friends one week, excluded in favour of someone else next week, some people within larger groups being more favoured than others - that get labelled as girls being bitchy. But these are predominantly girls.

The other thing that strikes me is the nature/nurture thing. Popular culture (children's books/TV) fosters this behaviour or at least passes it off as inevitable, then judges it. Back when DS was about 4 and going through his pink sparkly "I love Angelina Ballerina" phase, I bought him a "Girls book of ballet stories" (at his request) from the local bargain bookshop. The whole thing was what I can only describe as a training manual in over-thinking things. Our heroine gets marginalised by the mean alpha girl, is upset, the one friend who sticks by her manages to persuade others of how unreasonable alpha girl's behaviour is, alpha girl is sent to coventry and brought back into line by peer pressure (which in itself is borderline bullying). Everyone shakes hands and makes up (presumably with resentments seething away under the surface...) Couldn't one write a book for young children about ballet school in which the plots didn't centre round psychological warfare? Needless to say the book got "lost".

[LurcioAgain]

D'oh - predominantly boys! I have a DS (and such is the gender divide at this age that almost all of his friends are boys).

[Micah]

I often find that the children of parents who say "girls are vile", or bitchy, or manipulative, are the ones who display those very behaviours.

Parent stereotypes, girl lives up to stereotype, parent doesn't deal with the shitty behaviour because, after all, it's just what girls are like.

As ever, it's back to the parenting.

[sausageeggbacon11]

DD and DS1 were marginalised at school because we moved a lot so they changed schools a bit and were the newcomers. I remember one long and wearying discussion with a head teacher after DD was bullied as she had got cross and upset with the verbal abuse and responded the way she deals with her brothers. All the kids have studied some form of martial arts and DD side kicked the girl who was leading the verbal abuse. While she got a telling off for responding with violence from me the attitude from the teachers that DD had responded "like a boy" baffled me. I have always known you can push so far and then she will snap and I guess they found that out at the school. I had to ask why it was okay for girls to excluded and verbally abuse others and was surprised by the attitude of the teachers.

Fortunately we moved again not long after that so there was no chance of the issues continuing.

[MrNoseybonk]

"And also why is the language about girls and these stereotypes so negative, it's horrible. There are no equivalent terms for boys? The ones for boys I can think of, wimp, gay, etc are all words that describe feminine traits in a negative way. How has language evolved this way? "

Disagree about this bit and see things like this a lot - that insults for men/boys are feminine.
Ever heard a girl being called a little thug? Rowdy, rough, etc?
I've heard parents call boys wimps, but never gay.
But I agree with Buffy, when a girl does something "bitchy" it's because she's a girl, when a boy does it, not attributable to gender.

[scallopsrgreat]

Not sure I'm understanding what you are saying MrNoseybonk. Are you saying that insults for boys aren't feminine?

[MrNoseybonk]

Sometimes they are, but often people make out that all insults for boys are feminine.
In the contect of the OP I don't think the equivalent boy terms of "bitchy, snide, manipulative, nasty" are "wimp, gay, etc." i.e. feminine.

[scallopsrgreat]

I don't think anyone is saying all insults to boys are feminine. However there are a lot more insults to boys that are feminine than vice versa.

And there aren't any comparative insults to "bitchy, snide, manipulative, nasty" for boys. that is partly the point. They are sexist.

[scallopsrgreat]

When I say vice versa I mean girls being insulted for exhibiting boyish behaviour or being insulted using words designed only for boys.