Strollerderby : stereotypes

Parenting in Gendered World

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:00:00 GMT

There's a great thread over at Womanist Musings about the ongoing challenge of teaching our kids to be openminded about gender, especially when they are in school and experiencing both a bombardment of "this is what girls do; this is what boys do" and also watching peers tease/label/ostracize non-gender-conforming kids.

It's all so familiar to me: the tiring repetition, the feeling that others think you are going too far, and the related backlash: It's going too far to tell my kids that a hurtful term is not acceptable?! Or to fight like hell to keep them from constraining their own options in order to gender conform? Argh.

We've started using the "[That adult] just made a mistake [in assuming all girls like princesses/that you were a boy because you weren't wearing any pink/etc.]" line in our household that several commenters talk about. And we're still in the primarily spoon-feeding perspectives stage, where one of us is on hand to provide nearly instant feedback on all questionable statements. So it doesn't get any easier from here, I assume.

I'm sure it's the same any time you're trying to teach your child values that are not commonly held by the culture at large, whether it's gender fluiditiy, religious tolerance, or non-violence. You don't want to let things you find patently offensive and dangerous go by without response, and yet you have to walk the line of not seeming so obsessive you spark a rebellion or even just shut down conversation. I really appreciated hearing from so many parents in that thread who spoke of not freaking out over their daughters' girly phases, merely sticking to the "there's no such thing as girl/boy toys" mantra, and reporting that it "worked" (as in the message stuck with respect to others, not any particular outcome for their kids' interests). There's hope yet . . .

Photo by llamafloor.

More by this author:

What defines a girl or a boy?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Writing about transgendered kids is tough. If you believe sex is biologically set by chromosomes and organs, then even considering the whole notion is silly. If you believe that gender identity is entirely socially constructed, it's hard to understand why some kids raised in households without rigid gender roles—boys allowed to dress up and not like sports, etc.—still develop passionate, intense desires to be the other gender. (Me, I'm thinking hormones. Pesky things.)

The stories in the recent article on transgendered kids in the Minneapolis CityPages should certainly give pause to anyone who thinks these kids are having passing phases that their parents could easily deflect. And they also show the interesting challenge of coming out to potential romantic partners when you have transitioned early enough to pass completely. It's worth a read.

But as whenever we talk about what it means to "feel" like one gender or the other, the article ends up giving credence to conventional gender stereotypes and binaries along the way. It opens, for example, like this: "On her third birthday, Sarah Barnett tore open a package from her grandmother that would delight most girls her age. Gently folded on a pillow of tissue paper lay a frilly, ruffled dress." Sigh. Is it mixing my issues to wish that transgender awareness could manage not to rest on ideas like "girls inherently like frilly dresses?" Isn't the point that cross-dressing isn't enough?

The point of that anecdote, of course, is that her response was not (as my happy-to-be-a-woman childhood self's would have been) "Ew. I hate dresses," but "Why don't you tell Grandma I'm a boy?" Still, it points up how hard it is to talk about this issue without the crutch of "what most girls/boys" would like/prefer.

Photo by anyjazz65.

More by this author:

When Your Girl Is a Boy (Or Vice Versa)

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:15:00 GMT

We've all known (or been) boys obsessed with princesses and makeup or tomboys who would rather wipe an axle with a dress than wear it. Most of us who were raised with Free to Be You and Me and feminist moms (and even a bunch of us who weren't) go out of our way to let our non-gender-stereotype conforming kids explore whatever interests they want and express themselves as they see fit.

This is hard enough, given other parents' need to constantly harp on about what boys and girls do and like in front of our kids (something I've ranted about here). But what about when it's not enough? What if you have a kid who feels wrong in their body, insists on the other pronoun, and is generally miserable unless actually acknowledged as the other gender? By many accounts there are some kids for whom general freedom from prescribed gender roles doesn't cut it.

The authors of the newly released The Transgender Child, which deals with with "gender variance from birth through college," argue that a child's gender identity is generally a "permanent part of who they are," whether it matches biology or not. They wrote the book to help parents and professional find their way through the mine field of implications of that.

I know one family going through this, and even for the most liberal parents, it's hard. Changing your notion of who your child is midstream is no piece of cake. A transgendered child may need, ironically, to conform more tightly to stereotypes about their preferred gender in order to get a diagnosis of gender identity disorder. (But you can't really feel you're a girl if you like cars!

Even harder, if a diagnosis is given, then there are some big decisions to be made. The best time to medically transition to the other gender is pre-puberty: it works much better and allows you to pass as your preferred gender as an adult much better. No pesky unwanted facial hair or breasts to get rid of. But the prospect of letting a child so young make such a big decision is extremely uncomfortable. (Though apparently some folks are experimenting with puberty delaying drugs that could allow the decision to be put off. Puberty at 25 anyone?)

What do you think? Have you gone through this? What would you do if it were your kid?

Open Letter of the Month: Dear PR People...

Kelly Mills — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:35:00 GMT

Greetings PR people!

First, let me say I'm so glad you love the site, I appreciate that compliment. And I know your job can't be all easy, sending e-mails to bloggers and not knowing if you will be well-received or if some rogue is gonna mock the product or event you are pitching, though I suppose publicity is publicity. So let me just say a couple things and you can take or leave it, but I do mean this kindly.

First, I should warn you that I'm not such a fan of receiving e-mails that start, "Dear Mommy Blogger." I know many are fine with that term, but even my kid doesn't call me mommy (I'm "mama") so there you go. And believe it or not, we actually have real live men working here who have spawned children, and while some of them are better mothers than I'll ever be, it might behoove you to address your stuff using the more inclusive "parent blogger" or even (gasp) the name of our blog.

Same goes for products you think are a "mother's best friend" or "a boon to moms everywhere" or whatever. We like the dads here, and we'd like to think dads everywhere are participating in childrearing. Sticking with just the moms is limiting your market. Also, telling us your product was invented by a mom or moms is fine, but you should know that does not put you in the minority at this point, so it's kinda lost the selling power.

Now, some parent bloggers like it when you demonstrate you read the blog by mentioning a post or two. I don't care so much about that myself, but if you do plan to do this, double check your e-mail to avoid sending something that literally says "I like your post on x" because it wouldn't be the first time someone forgot to fill in the blank and it makes us all feel silly. The faux-friendly tone sometimes is a little grating too: I like it when you get to the point without pretending we snuggle each other. And it should probably go without saying that a somewhat sexist riff on a cleaning product or stereotyped site mommies will adore or a kit for clueless dads is probably not going to be well-received. I mean, send us things by all means, but some of this is just fair game for us.

Finally, it's great that Gwyneth Paltrow uses your solid gold rattle or JLo is gaga over your high thread count wipes, but that is not such a selling point for me personally. All it says to me is that you sent out free stuff to celebrities, and don't they already have enough free stuff? Now, if you told me you donated a hundred of whatever you are pitching to needy parents, that might sway me. Celebs? Not so much.

Anyhow, have a great day, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kelly

Toddlers Can’t Marry In Arkansas No More

Cole Gamble — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:30:00 GMT

Arkansas didn’t need this. It could’a happened someplace else. To one of them northern states like, real uppity-like, such as New York and that place with the Cheese steaks. Arkansas shouldn’t have to suffer this indignity. But it’s fact, toddlers are no longer legally allowed to get hitched in the Great State of Arkansas.

But why? Why can’t these lovin’ toddlers be married?

Turns out they were never meant to. A recently passed bill attempting to set a minimum marriage age of 18 actually, due to a typo, removed any age limit at all. All any two kids, even infants, require to get married is their parents approval. And with that thought, let us imagine a few things one might overhear at a toddler wedding:

“I know pronounce you husband and wife. You may smear snot all over the bride.”

“What’s holding up the ceremony?”

“The groom ran from the alter.”

“Cold feet?”

“No, he saw a squirrel.”

“Is the bridesmaid available? What am I saying; she’s like 4-years-old, an old maid.”

“Okay Maddy, time to cut the cake. Cut the cake Maddy. Get off the Cake, Maddy. GET OFF THE CAKE!”

Well, I could go on about honeymoons at Chuck E. Cheese and what-not, but suffice to say Arkansas is working to reverse this error, and thus take just a little more fun out of our lives.

Pregcellent: Vacant Womb For Rent

Kelly Mills — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:33:00 GMT

First off, I'd like to say that anyone who goes into being a surrogate strictly for the money has chosen a very challenging way to make a buck, because being pregnant is no picnic. But as this Newsweek article on the lives of surrogates points out, many women are also motivated by a desire to help others and to contribute something meaningful to the lives of couples who want kids. And the stereotype of the rich woman who wants a baby but not the stretch marks and thus hires a surrogate is strange also, since I can't imagine what would be more challenging than entrusting another person with your offspring before they are even born. So I doubt that one is founded much in reality either.

The article, which chronicles the stories of a number of women who became surrogates, touches on the controversies surrounding the practice, and there are many. There's the issue of maternal rights, and the fact that most surrogacy contracts aren't binding in many ways. There's the issues that come with one person in essence renting out their body, and the questions around what makes someone a parent, DNA or gestation or actual childrearing. Surrogacy is banned in much of Europe, and stereotypes about surrogates abound. Interestingly, many surrogates are military wives with husbands overseas. The article is worth checking out, if only because it makes you think hard about what it means to be a mother.

Controversy: Nature/Nurture

Amy S.F. Lutz — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:30:00 GMT

Madeline's post this week expressing frustration and despair at the blatant sexism in her Target circular definitely pitted the feminist theorists against the . . . I don't know, what do you call those who pretty much said, "Chill out, it's just a Target circular"?

I too was raised to think of gender as a cultural construct. My mom drilled into my head that girls like pink and dolls and dresses and boys like blue and trucks and guns because society tells us we should. And I believed it.

Now, can I hear from all of those who thought as I did until we had children who thwarted our every expectation? Because I KNOW there's a lot of us out there.

You know who you are. You wear track pants every day, yet somehow end up with a girly-girl who won't wear anything but dresses and patent-leather Mary Janes to school. Or, conversely, you know how to put on eye shadow and own trendy ballet flats in six different colors, but your daughter is philosophically opposed to brushing her hair and spends all her time playing soccer.

The fact is, if Piaget can conceive his entire theory of child development from observing his own three children, then I feel perfectly comfortable declaring, after watching the seven kids who live in my house, NATURE RULES. It doesn't mean that boys and girls will always fall into traditional gender roles, although I think that happens the majority of the time. It means that, as martinsgirl noted, "kids like what they like."

Take my twins, Aaron and Gretchen, the youngest in a household teeming with toys, with two older girls and three older boys to serve as role models. By 15 months old, Gretchen was obsessed with baby dolls. She played with them appropriately, pushing them around in buggies and feeding them bottles. Aaron couldn't have cared less. I've also watched my two nephews (3 and 2) become so consumed with sword fighting that they spar with their forks at the table, while their older girl cousins look on, appalled.

I still fight against gender stereotypes. When my girls tell me Minnie Mouse is for girls and Mickey is for boys, or that princess lunchboxes are for girls and Bob the Builder is for boys, I tell them anyone can like anything - and they don't argue with me. That doesn't seem to have much impact on what they like, however.

Video: Super Bowl Advertisers are Marketing to Moms (and Their Large Butts)

thezeroboss — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:38:00 GMT

There's a discussion roiling in the parental blogosphere about whether Super Bowl advertisers are deliberately playing to moms as well as dads and single guys. According to the Marketing to Moms Web site, research shows an increasing number of moms tuning in the Big Game - and over half of them say that the commercials are what hold their interest the most. Beth at Silicon Valley Moms Blog retorts that if marketers want to play to the mom crowd, they'll have to do better than this Bud Light ad from 2003, which features a mom sporting The Ass That Ate Seattle. (More examples of bad mom ads on Beth's site.)

(Note: Every time I attempt to embed this video, it shows "White and Nerdy" instead. Damn you, iFilm. You'll have to see the video for yourself here, or visit Beth's post.)