To be saddened by this casual gender stereotyping?

[SuiGeneris]

DS went to a third birthday party recently. Lovely family that we would like to get to know more. As seems common round here there was an entertainer who spun out a story and games on a pirate theme. It started off with there being an island full of monsters that the boys (aka pirates) were asked to scare away "so that it would be safe for the princesses to come onto the island". I was stunned (and, it must be said, sad and irritated) that in this day and age, in London, in an educated environment, this should be acceptable. Of course the hostess probably had not heard the story before and the other parents would not have said anything through politeness but.. Really??

As it happens DS asked to be a princess when it came to the face painting and none of the other children said anything. At just 3 I think they are unaware of stereotypes, so why foist them on them?

But will you carry it through Amanda.
I let my kids go their own sweet way in these things
I have boys and girls btw].
My girls all do paid work either full time or part time that are either male dominated, or very male dominated.
This idea that if you are exposed to a lot of girly thing makes you very girly later on is rubbish.

I know plenty of other girls like them btw.
Around here, the jobs are probably more male than female, which makes this area quite unusual.
So the girls muck in. [and as far as i know, they were exposed to as much princess things as any other girl in the land]

So dont worry people.

What do you mean 'will I carry it through?' ?

First going to admit I've skim read the thread as it's pretty big.

IMO this stuff does matter, just recently bunch of 6 and 7 year old boys I know told a girl of the same age that she couldn't be a pirate in their game because "Girls weren't pirates" and "you're just a girl."

These boys were astonished when I told them about Grace O'Mally, Anne Boney and Mary Read.

The boys had got the idea from somewhere, the theme wouldn't bother me as long as it was Pirates and Princess and Princes and everyone got a choice, what was the point in gendering the situation at all?

I'm not sure Amanda. I do think that there is some innate leaning towards some toys, games, and so on. I'm not an expert though and will happily acknowledge if I am not correct.

Take being a SAHP - this is female dominated - yet if there ever was a job that cold be done by both genders it is this one, I am a teacher, I know so many female teachers, married to male teachers, who go part time when they have their first child. The male teacher goes on to further his career as a head of department or deputy, the female teacher stays a part time class teacher. The reason seems to be that that is what individual families decide; why? I I just don't know. (I am full time, for the record)

I would like to see acknowledgement of the fact that men can be stay at home parents, that it isn't just down to mum - yet I can't help but think mums would do it anyway. Why I don't know but I do feel insisting girls and boys are the same, identical, is skimming over issues. Different doesn't mean unequal.

Teapots, Cordelia Fine writes very eloquently on this subject. Definitely worth a read.

Yes, Cordelia Fine is marvellous. What I really got from her book is that we still don't know if there is an innate component, because no one has ever managed to adequately control for societal nurture elements, and a lot of the evidence touted as evidence of innate leanings doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I wouldn't rule out innate differences, but I don't think anyone has every proved any IYSWIM.

Teapots - SAHP is a really good example. Yes, it could be done by either. But so much of society pushes families towards a particular decision. For a few examples:

• women tend to earn less (and to choose careers that earn less), so loss of that salary is less of an issue;
• women tend to have taken mat leave, so that family model has already been 'trialled';
• women tend to bear the main burden of pick ups, drop offs, sickness, etc, so their work is more impacted by parenting already;
• it is more socially acceptable for women to request flexible working, and most employers half expect it. Laying the groundwork for women being more likely to put career on the back burner;
• both parents are more likely to have seen SAHP being done by women, in their own families and elsewhere;
• men are still to some extent brought up to be 'providers'.

So we honestly don't know if families would make these choices in a gender neutral world.

Dont male and female teachers earn the same if they are at the same level?

And isnt it now proved, in this country , that up to a woman having babies, they are on the same salary or more than men?

When was the Cordelia Fine book last updated?

I absolutely agree with you, I wouldn't have liked it either, OP.

Has anybody noticed this, or is it just me? Thinking of the recent competitiveness of a good few parents I've observed lately to show how right-on and gender neutral they are. The fashion used to be for their girls to wear tutus with cowboy boots, now it seems to be boys in gaudy pink princess dresses. I'm not joking.

My list was mine. not Cordelia Fine's. They were separate points. sorry if that wasn't clear. And I didn't mean everything on my list applied to teaching.

parents who happily dress their 'princess' in pink and don't mind that she isn't remotely aware that she could be a nurse or a doctor when she grows up.

I dressed my DD is in a pink t-shirt the other week, I had no idea that her life-long ambition to be a doctor is now ruined because she wore this colour.

Twilight did you deliberately ignore the and in that statement?

My dd wears pink sometimes. It's a colour. Just a colour. But some people only put their dds in pink & they tend to teach them to be passive.

This topic does seem to bring out disingenuous comments.

There is still a fairly large pay discrepancy. If you take a male and female 16 year old, with same date of birth, who leave school with the same qualifications, then the male is likely to earn around 20% more than the female, even if they take almost identical jobs.
If you look at graduates, the pay difference is les, I think arond15%. But the difference. Is now growing again with the recession.

E.g. When I left my last teaching job, there was no advert for the post or interview. A male teacher was called into the office and given my post of HoD. Ther were female staff on the dept with better qualifications, experience and more experience, but they didn't even get a look in. So you can't compare men who do the same job as women, they often get there more easily while women who would be better at the job don't have the chance. You have to look at the qualifications then track those people for years.

And if you're unsure about the significance of pink etc look at Cinderella Ate my Daughter and Schoolgirls to see the issues of gender stereotyping in kids.

Also google the families who don't declare the sex of their babies, but bring them up gender neutral.

There are some very good academic studies out there which aren't anec-data and just being pc for the sake of it.

What, Babies? .

Twilight presumably assumed those two statements were linked because you linked them with the use of "and". So what was your point, exactly?

DS (3.8) calls all children "boys". I think he thinks it just means children. I always correct him, but I don't think he particularly cares about kids' gender. He is a bit more aware of the adults'. Go figure.

I just asked DS whether HE was a boy or a girl, while he was sort of engrossed in a TV programme and I got this response:

DS: I'm a girl.
Me: Really, are you sure?
DS: No, I'm not yet grown up. 13 seconds. No 2 minutes. It's not yet.
Me: No, DS, listen. Are you a BOY OR a GIRL?
DS: No, I'm not. It's not yet. 20 minutes.

He is normal, as far as we know. (No SN) He just genuinely doesn't care (and he always has some imaginary game in his head eliciting weird responses - currently he is waiting to go on holiday to his GPs, apparently, clutching the cars he wants to take with him).

Perhaps if the statement wasn't quoted out of context it would be clearer.

I've read the original post. It's still not clear.

I think the fact that some women do well despite social gender expectations conditioning is beside the point. I know two very successful women in my industry who their former boss describes as 'having very different styles. One got her way through flirting, the other cried. Both worked.' These are women who's work is amongst the best in our industry. They have won all the top awards etc. the decisions they got 'their way' on were multi million pound investments with billion dollar payoffs. I've often wanted to ask him if this anecdote says more about him than them. Surely making these decisions to assuage tears or respond to flirting is pretty pathetic male behaviour?!

Not sure what point you are making Think.

kickassangel, I think I was the right the first time about pay of males and females up to when the female has a baby.

So actually, in theory, male teachers could give up their jobs or go part time, leaving the woman to carry on working.

So why dont they?

The trouble is that this kind of thing is so ubiquitous that the majority see it as normal and as such 'no big deal' while the minority get increasingly annoyed at it being so pervasive.

Just wait until they start school - it will get worse, I promise.

But then I suppose all of you who are trying to change things will refuse all invitations to soccer parties (boys) and pamper parties (for girls) and keep your PCs at home?

Oh, and be careful not to take them shopping EVER as they might see something that is gender typical !!

I'm one, who up thread said I can't get worked up about this. I have qualifications upto level 3 in childcare and have seen children of both genders in role play, boys will play female roles and girls will play male roles. They will, also, play with toys that are typically seen as not for their gender, IYSWIM. I grant you, there are exceptions to the rule.

I am, also, the mother of 2 boys. They had a wide range of toys to play with, they weren't ever told that's for girls (DM may have said it once about a doll but was soon told) and were left to make their own minds up. As they got older they tended to go for toys and games that were aimed slightly more at boys, like football and rugby.

DS1(18) now wants a career in the Army, DS2 (16) wants a career as a nurse.

I have 2 boys 8 & 11, I am an aircraft engineer and DH works in an office. It is just not on their radar that girls "can't" do/be whatever they choose to be - it is normal for them that a woman does a "traditionally male" job (in fact, they don't even realise that it's a typically male job). Instead of looking to blame society for gender stereotyping your child, look to your own home - if you are creating a positive sense of self for your DD then it is most unlikely that they will become the passive, helpless princess in later life due to a few games of pirates and princesses.

Breeze - I can't find anything linking it to first baby - have you got anything you can link to? According to some studies, the pay gap has narrowed (to almost nothing in some areas) in people's 20s. (You want page 22). That isn't quite the same as saying it's when women have a baby though. Although many women have their first child in their late 20s/early 30s, it could also be that women are finding it easy to get onto the early rungs of the career ladder, but not to climb.

Even assuming it is the case, earnings are only one element of the way people make their decisions. You asked why don't more male teachers give up work - what about everything on my list? Also, ironically, if one of you is a teacher that can make it easier to both keep working (getting off in time for pick up, covering those nursery closure weeks, etc), so to balance the anecdote upthread, I know quite a number of female lawyers who married male teachers and managed to both keep working full time, because you could actually keep all the plates spinning.

Tango - So what are you saying, because we can't win every battle we just give up from the off? I'd hope that maybe if we didn't blast toddlers with gender stereotypes at every turn, maybe we'd have more inclusive choices later on in life, or children more happy to move outside what is 'gender typical' (to use your phrasing). But even if I am going to be attacked by pamper parties later on, it doesn't mean that the early stuff isn't worth fighting for.

Like the breeze, why do you think you were right? What data are you using to support your supposition?

In the US the earning differential is now around $1 to 76c. Ie for each dollar earns by a man, a woman earns 76 cents. And the difference s getting wider, not narrower.

I'm on my iPad so links not possible ATM, but I am studying an MA in gender studies, so I think my data is quite up to date and well researched. What make should think that you are right and I'm wrong?

Btw, UK and US data on this issue is very similar, with the UK slightly less good at equal pay for gender.