The Times today,article on gender neutral parenting.

Because the world needs more violent men, TBBE, of course. Durrbrain.

The thing is though ISNT it was my mum that said it was for not very educated girls and my female career advisor told me I was better than that and it is a brain dead profession . This was in 1999. I have never had a man tell me it isnt a valid career or career choice.

I dont care about pay or status I just did what they wanted so they wouldnt think I was stupid. It was just a case of women trying to prove points to men who didnt even care. I know my husband doesnt as he thinks my job is really important. Thats why I am happy for my daughter to do whatever she wants even if that is dress all in pink, dress as a fairy or do something as dumb as want to work with children

Yes that's exactly what I mean snowflake. Of course caring for children is extremely important for society and for everybody, it is a skill that not everyone has, it is hard work etc etc. But because caring is traditionally "women's work" it is undervalued and underpaid, there is little or no status in caring roles. So they are seen as crap.

That's your sexist society in action really.

And it is a trap for women in more ways than one. Aside from the low status/low pay side. A woman who decides to do something to "prove they are better" as you did is seen in general as doing something unusual - thus reinforcing the stereotype. Meanwhile if they decide to do something traditionally female - like childcare - then they are also reinforcing the stereotype.

So you can't win really. Whatever women do is held up as proof that really they should be doing the stereotypical stuff.

Its interesting that you say that ISNT. As I said I work with children and it is usually women that think that it is beneath them, subservient,inferior, for thick girls etc. I have heard plenty of comments like that from women but never from men.

I think a lot of girls get pushed in to doing something 'better' for instance I wanted to work with babies and very young children when I left school but I joined the military instead to prove that I wasnt thick or stupid. I left to go and do what I wanted in the first place.

When I say easy for feminists to fall into I mean that for someone like me, a self identified feminist, I didn't identify the inherent sexism in my ideas that "girls" things were somehow inferior - which is about as sexist as you can get.

This is where I get caught in a feedback loop suzi. Unfortunately I was brought up very much in the vein that "boys" things were better - and it's a bit of a trap and one it's easy for feminists to fall into.

So for eg I did sciences at school - but my parents and school were quite high achieving so lots of girls did "boys" things. Meanwhile being extremely disparaging about "girls" subjects and things.

So I have bought into the idea that "girls" things are crap. But that's not fair is it, they are fine, it's society that says they are crap as girls are crap IYSWIM.

So when DD wants pink sparkly ballet and hairstyling things I grit my teeth and smile. Meanwhile I know that if she does swallow the pink sparkly thing whole it might limit her horizons.

It's all a bit complicated.

anastasia yes that was funny

Btw, I'm not being serious about Pink Stinks - I fully support it - but the girls stuff = pink = inferior is interesting. Pink should be gender neutral and then up to the child to decide whether he/she wants it or not.

snowflake - I've noticed this at ds's nursery. I think there's far more freedom there for the children to play with what they want than there (necessarily) would be at home.

I know a few parents (of both sexes) who are very disparaging about the idea of their boy having something pink, or having a doll.

It's interesting about the pink and sparkly thing. I wonder if children of both genders aren't just attracted to bright, sparkly things. Why wouldn't you be? Maybe "pink stinks" is looking at things the wrong way. Maybe we should be coming down on the idea that pink, sparkly fairy twee rubbish is for girls.

I like the part where it says (paraphrased) 'the girl chimps weren't copying their mothers because the mothers didn't play with sticks'

head hits desk

noooooo because the mothers carried babies and the infants pretended the sticks were babies....

Interesting, thank you anastasia.

The male = violence link is in there, as well.

The article itself hedges its bets on whether the stick carrying behaviour is down to nature or nurture.

It's all very interesting. I love reading about this sort of thing until teh results are used to say "WOMEN stay at home and have babies it is your destiny! Don't try and do SUMS what are you thinking they are for MEN!!!" etc etc etc

Isn't: the male chimps also carried the sticks, just for less time overall

I read an interesting book - Pink brain, blue brain. It concluded that very young children's toy choices were one of the few gender differences that there was reasonable evidence was innate - but that to infer from that that men are innately better at maths or can't look after children is bollocks (I paraphrase).

It also points out how children of around 7 years old like to put things firmly into categories and 'police' gender stereotypes much more than adults. And makes the point as well about children seeing it as more acceptable for girls to play with boys' toys than vice versa (implying the difference in status is already understood at a young age).

"An article in the latest edition of Current Biology, out today, says that when playing in the wild, both male and female chimpanzees use sticks as toys, but the females are more likely to treat the sticks as dolls, ?mothering? them. This is due to ?biological predilections?, say the researchers."

In fact it doesn't say what the males did with them. Don't know where I got the violent thing from - maybe that's what things like this usually say. For all we know the male chimps were using the sticks as knitting needles and knitting tiny clothing to go on the baby stick dolls...

cakeretention OMG, how did I not realise that the reason it was not okay for boys to play with girls' toys because they were effectively losing status when doing so, whereas tomboy girls are acceptable because they are seen as increasing their status; and it's seen as perfectly acceptable for any human being to want to be a member of the dominant class. Oh, it's so obvious! How did I not realise...
DS loves prams, dolls and whatever, and I'm not bothered at all, but there it is, it is different when girls play with boys' toys

THeTimesMNer, well done on the article

Oh final point.

So because some chimps have played with sticks in a certain way, we are to infer that this absolutely reflects a truth about humans?

My first question is - do chimps know what sex they are - do they emulate adults of the same sex? Do chimps have gender roles?

The second is that their conclusion is, what? Females are inherently nurturing and males are inherently violent? How shit. Especially for men. And strangely, in my life, I know loads of nurturing men and no-one who is violent. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, chimp researchers

Interesting.

The thing that struck me was that in the 70s and 80s when people talked about doing gender neutral parenting type stuff, I think it was more extreme - to me the idea of a boy playing with a doll or a girl playing with a car isn't particularly groundbreaking it's just normal. So my first question is, have we really gone that far backwards from where we were in the 70s/80s in terms of clothing and toys - I think the answer is yes isn't it. But then like snowflake - for preschoolers anyway - I know and have seen loads of boys playing with dolls in pushchairs and girls with cars etc and no-one bats an eyelid. The thins I notice more is the expectation on girls to look a certain way and the enormously positive reaction when they do. I have girls and they're both small so not really noticed what goes on with boys. Oh apart from one time a little boy being urged to climb something high and he really didn't want to, but a girl had just done it and the dad was applying quite a lot of pressure. I think that sort of thing is more common, a girl would be allowed not to/not encouraged to do something physically difficult in the first place maybe.

I also agree with the superior activities/inferior activities thing which cakeretention talked about - I think it turns from an indulgent eye to something worse as they get older. And you have this double whammy of "boys" activities are superior - but girls "aren't allowed" to do them and there can be consequences if they do.

Finally hello thetimesMNer I didn't realise this was you! Nice one

DH and I had an interesting chat about this article last night. He said that he felt really sorry for Sammy. He's broadly supportive of my wishes regarding not buying pink things for DD but he felt quite strongly that Sammy's mother was going too far.

My response was that we shouldn't make assumptions about how children will grow and develop based on what their gender is. To my mind, it starts with girls only being 'allowed' to have pink things and develops into their only being one kind of body shape and hairstyle that's acceptable, to there being only a limited range of careers that they can aspire to. Our DD is already (at 15 months) developing a very definite personality which is very specific to her and nothing to do with the fact that she's a girl.

We agreed that we would both do our best to introduce our DD to as broad a range of experiences as possible and not to limit her because she's a girl. And the same goes for any sons that we might have in future.

But gender stereotyping exists in the world - partly, as the article points out, for commercial reasons - even if we don't like it or agree with it. I actually wondered if Sammy's mother was using him to try to change the status quo rather than genuinely allowing him to be the person he wants to be.

BTW - agree with cakeretention that boys aren't allowed to like girly things or wear dresses because anything feminine is regarded as intrinsically inferior.

I have worked in quite a few round the country but have never experienced anyone say/or remark that anything is for girls or this is for boys etc.

All of my current children are from council houses/hb residences. Nobody really cares what the kids play with I dont think. I think its different at the poorer end of the spectrum and the kids are left to get on with it and play with whatever makes them happy. Nobody is pushing them in to what they want to do when they grow up, they are instead just playing.

Also with my husband it never bothered him. He was brought up in Newcastle and no one said anything to him about having the doll. He is also one of the most popular boys in his year. I think if you dont think its anything to be ashamed of then no one will say anything to you.

snowflake,

on the otherhand my brother had a doll that he asked for for his 3rd (I think) birthday. It was his baby and he looked after it and took it to lots of places.

Then over the summer (so only 3.5ish) 2 bigger boys on a day out were so mean to him about it that he only ever played with it in the house after that. That was in the 80s too, and the bigger boys must only have been about 6 themselves.

None of us knew exactly what they'd said to him but my mum and dad weren't able to reassure him that it was fine to take the doll out still :(

Your setting sounds really positive about it being fine to like anything - they aren't all like that though. I've worked in a number and they vary hugely.

Having seen lots of children go through child care settings I have seen many with prams with dolls in. They bring in their own from home. I have never met a boy that doesnt play with dolls and I have never met a girl that doesnt play with cars within a setting. Also in my current setting all the children fight over who gets pink eg plates, cups etc. Its constant because they all want that colour they all try and fight until they get pink. The second you come out the kitchen they start fighting saying I want pink, give me pink.

Additionally out of all outfits at the nursery the most popular for both sexes are Disney Princesses. We have pics of some of the boys as princesses for the front of their work books. None of the parents mind and we have never heard anyone say thats for girls, or thats for boys. I think children who have been in childcare from a young age dont have preferences for one type of toy.

When my husband was growing up he had a doll called Amy who he had until he was 8 and no one ever said anything to him. That was back in the 80s.