Early years visual references-ABC of careers

[RainbowOctopus]

Hello all,
I'm not going to pretend to be anything I'm not. I am looking to find out whether there is an appetite for a product I'm creating.
It's an artwork for children's rooms, nurseries, pre-schools etc. It's an alphabet A is for astronaut etc. Why am I discussing this in a feminist forum? Because the characters depicted are in roles that challenge social norms. Female astronauts, male social workers. During the course of my studies I came across a video of 7 year old children being asked to draw a fighter pilot, fire fighter and police officer (pretty sure that was the professions). All drew them as male. When the children were introduced to females in these roles they thought they were fake, or dressing up. Sadly this is quite a recent video. I feel sad that a male might be brought up to consider a role in the caring profession might in some way emasculate him, and even sadder to think he might be brought up thinking a female can't be an astronaut, Judge or mechanic! The artwork is also addressing the issue of race. There are so few children's books and pictures that have anything other than white children. We all want to believe that our children can be who they choose, that they can excel and be accepted in the world of work, but can they really if by the age of 7 they already have firm ideas about what boys and girls can do an achieve? I would really appreciate any thoughts or ideas

I don’t think a male social worker challenges gender norms at all, they just get the glass elevator while being hailed as revolutionary, all for doing what women do for zero thanks

Ditto any man in a 'female' occupation (sadly).

I think the issue is usually that, due to massive societal sexism, boys will object to reading a book 'about a girl' but girls see reading a book 'about a boy' as normal and unobjectionable, so books about boys are the path of least resistance, especially as it's generally regarded to be harder to get boys reading in the first place

If this shit is hardwired by the time they are three or four where does it come from and how can we stop it?

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I think the issue is usually that, due to massive societal sexism, boys will object to reading a book 'about a girl' but girls see reading a book 'about a boy' as normal and unobjectionable, so books about boys are the path of least resistance, especially as it's generally regarded to be harder to get boys reading in the first place

If this shit is hardwired by the time they are three or four where does it come from and how can we stop it?

I honestly don't know - as I say, I consciously try to make sure that my DS has more books with female main characters, and he loves them - the Amazing Little People book about Emmeline Pankhurst, or 'Emloo' as he says it, is a favourite - but he's not yet three, and I suspect that realistically I'll find my influence here soon starts to wane.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I think the issue is usually that, due to massive societal sexism, boys will object to reading a book 'about a girl' but girls see reading a book 'about a boy' as normal and unobjectionable, so books about boys are the path of least resistance, especially as it's generally regarded to be harder to get boys reading in the first place

If this shit is hardwired by the time they are three or four where does it come from and how can we stop it?

Excellent question.

There seems to be a lot of acceptance that this is "just the way things are".

Let's fix it!

Perpetuating male as the default human really does need to be actively opposed wherever possible. Little kids really shouldn't still be getting this message in the 21st century.

@ErrolTheDragon

Perpetuating male as the default human really does need to be actively opposed wherever possible. Little kids really shouldn't still be getting this message in the 21st century.

That reminds me of one that I didn't even realise I did for a while - making all animals male by default. It doesn't help that it happens that our pets are both male, but I realised that whenever I read to DS I described animals as he unless they had massive eyelashes or something - and since so many toddler books are about animals that meant they were all about male characters, if I did that. I'm trying to break the habit but it's quite engrained!

There seems to be a lot of acceptance that this is "just the way things are".

Let's fix it!

That is something we can try and do on an individual level.
I try to centre women in my teaching ( I know every other teacher will centre men so it balances out. I show I am a feminist in daily life. I kept my own name (interestingly this meant my school ignored my wedding, every other teacher that got married was invited to do an assembly- I hate the limelight so wasn't bothered, but still..) I am raising my son to like all types of toys, I try not to gender his toy animals ( as said before that's really hard to do consciously, especially when grandparents undermine it) I sign petitions, I read etc.

But I also know I am one person very much in the minority. It took me ten years for DH to understand feminism. I think I'm realistic in that society will take longer.
To be honest, educators can be as equal opportunities as they like, but if the message the parents are giving is different, that's the one absorbed.
I'd also say it's very hard to beat the system without playing the game. Look at j k Rowling. Would Henrietta and the philosopher's stone have been a bestseller? Her publisher didn't think so.

I’m inclined to agree with Errol re making traditionally male roles appear most attractive.

I also think there tends to be very little push for males to be in traditionally female roles because men already dominate in those sectors with ease. Most primary teachers tend to be female but look at the proportion of heads who are male. Same re care workers and their managers. And so on.

I also think it’s hugely important to consider that a great deal of ‘women’s work’ is unpaid labour. If you really want to make a difference and not just make traditional male roles more appealing (because that’s the bias with parents sending their girls to football and rugby but not their boys to ballet) then show men being sahps & being the unpaid carer for their kids with disabilities or their sick mother or being the person who shops for their older neighbours who can’t go out safely during lockdown or volunteering at pta and food bank and so on. Obviously not necessarily nursery job pics ideal, but the reality is when showing lots of nursery kids pics of what jobs they can do when they grow up you will be erasing many of the women in their lives who they see work very hard every day for zero acknowledgment. It continues the divide second wave feminism is often criticised for between women who went out into transitional male roles (because women can do anything) and ‘lesser’ women left to do the ‘women’s work’ of childcare, cleaning, cooking, other caring duties (because this still all needs done for societies to function and people able to work and earn, and it’s not like women entering male roles meant men picked up the unpaid, poorly thought of, labour that enabled them to do so). It’s this divide that frequently makes woc and poorer women sceptical of feminism and means women don’t stand together over many issues that affect us all. And part of that certainly starts with the ‘correction’ of male/female roles that only serve to make male roles more attractive (hence still higher paid) and mean men in traditionally female roles jump straight on the glass elavator to higher pay, more promotions, and much more respect for roles women get zero respect for. Showing a female doctor and a male nurse just doesn’t take the nuances into account and don’t help anything. It’s already been around for decades and hasn’t helped yet, so needs much greater consideration of the wider reality before yet more blindness that serves to enforce the status quo in a way people can’t directly identify.

Re the language used- while I think any true neutral term is hugely important - police officer, flight attendant etc I’m not sold on manager actor waiter etc being the default neutral. Using man to mean man and woman isn’t ok, why is using the male term for both actor and actress ok? Why do male terms become the only term? Bad enough human and woman etc are just man + a couple of letters, need we do this with all language? Erase women by making us all male .....
‘ess ’ added to the end of the male term is no better, but just actor waiter etc isn’t helping either.

then show men being sahps & being the unpaid carer for their kids with disabilities

The thing is the structure isn't in place to support this. Ds is in process of getting a cerebral palsy DX. Both myself and DH are in education. He is the high earner for a number of reasons a lot to do with his sex. But we can't afford to live off my wage so I will be the chief carer.

@TheBuffster

You could also use famous examples like: A is for aviator Amelia Airhart C is for cook Jamie Oliver S is for Scientist Madam Curie P is for Pop Star David Bowie

Making some phonics flash cards might be a good way to make it relevant to eyfs

Just make them cartoony
The bedtime stories for daring girls is a good resource

Love that idea!

It sounds great, OP.

One thought I have is very limited classroom wall space. I wonder if a book might be a good way of presenting the alphabet like this?

If you pitch it to a publisher that works in/with education, you'll also have a lot of help getting it out there. Distribution is key, ime.

Actually maybe a multipronged approach would work.

Youtube videos, (sadly), seem to go down very well in schools at the moment. So I'd consider putting the idea into video/song form as well as poster/book.

And partnering up with another org might work, too - 'let toys be toys' perhaps or one of the women in STEM orgs.

I also think it’s hugely important to consider that a great deal of ‘women’s work’ is unpaid labour. If you really want to make a difference and not just make traditional male roles more appealing (because that’s the bias with parents sending their girls to football and rugby but not their boys to ballet) then show men being sahps & being the unpaid carer for their kids with disabilities or their sick mother or being the person who shops for their older neighbours who can’t go out safely during lockdown or volunteering at pta and food bank and so on

Also agree with this.

Agree buffster, I’m the carer for my children who have multiple disabilities for the exact same reason.

But the structure isn’t in place for it because traditionally male roles are still paid much much higher than female ones, and the higher paid ones within female arenas are mostly occupied by men. It’s not a judgement to point this out- I worked in a traditionally female role, I earned a third of what my husband did, it was a no brainier. I also knew more about their disabilities due to this so it was inevitable. But I, like other women and men, didn’t make choices about what I studied and which carer I chose in a vacuum. A huge part of traditionally female roles being paid less is that women are seen as less, putting lots of pics of women in traditionally male roles doesn’t address that and neither does pics of men in traditionally female roles, as the glass elevator effect has been very well noted for decades now. Neither addresses revaluing the unpaid labour so many women do, which leaves a whole section of women again invisible. I’m not sure how this should be addressed in nursery years, but the reality is many of those kids will seen women in their lives doing unpaid caring labour and anything that includes ‘what will you be when you grow up’ without looking at this, and showing men in those roles, this continues to devalue many women, the work they do and the contribution that makes, and that has a knock of effect of women’s jobs being paid less and so gives those of us in this position no choice.

Interestingly women's work is so devalued that as a teacher I am regularly asked by 5 year olds what my 'real' job is. Because they don't see childcare as work.