Last week, I read an article about a gender discrimination complaint filed against Toys R Us. The complaint was launched by a bunch of Swedish 6th graders who found the Toys R Us 2008 Christmas catalogue offensive because it reinforced stereotypical gender roles by featuring boys in active roles and girls in passive ones. According to the class’s teacher, the complaint brought forward by these children is the result of more than 2 years’ work on gender roles.
This story makes me want to jump for joy. To see an example of young people recognizing and trying to actively combat sexism and outdated gender roles gives me hope that today’s youth really can effect change in the world. One of the students even stated that children of either sex should be able to be whoever they want to be even if “guys want to be princesses sometimes.” How could I not swoon?
And then I read the online reader comments that followed the story. And I wanted to cry.
Although I’ve been around the block enough times to know how attached people are to the idea of gender and gender roles, I somehow am repeatedly shocked at how essentialist some people get. Several readers who posted comments seemed to confuse the Swedish children’s complaint as a desire to obliterate sex/gender altogether and homogenize all human beings, and many argued that there is a distinct, innate difference between boys and girls. Seriously, people, it’s the 21st century and you’re still trying to peddle that nonsense?
There’s really too much to address on this topic in a simple blog post, and, frankly, this whole discussion is so old that I can’t believe I’m even writing about it. But after having researched and written many an undergraduate psych paper on gender roles, I do know that an array of reputable psychologists and sociologists have studied gender and gender roles in children and have pretty much determined that gender is largely socially constructed. The types of toys children are given to play with, the types of clothes they’re dressed in, the types of activities they’re encouraged to pursue, and even how adults interact with boy babies versus girl babies: all that stuff makes a mark on a kid.
I don’t think the Swedish kids are calling for a complete erasure of sex and gender. I think the point is that we all need to be more mindful of how boys and girls/men and women are treated and represented and what kinds of expectations we have on each. The point is that difference shouldn’t be based on biological sex. Boys can be princesses and girls can be knights in shining armour. Get over it.
Tagged as:
education,
gender roles,
kids
According to a study published yesterday, Toronto teenagers want more access to sex education. The media are reporting this story as if it’s honest-to-goodness news, but I’m kind of wondering whether anyone is actually surprised at the findings of the Toronto Teen Survey, which was conducted by Planned Parenthood Toronto in conjunction with York University, the University of Toronto, Wilfred Laurier University, and Toronto Public Health. I’m sure community groups that deal with teen health and sex education, such as Planned Parenthood or Head and Hands, are more than ready to yell out a huge “I told you so” to governments and boards of education that have been slowly hacking away at sex ed classes in public schools.
I have to admit that I’m not entirely up to date on the quantity and quality of sex education classes in Canadian schools, which certainly must vary province to province, given that education is provincially regulated. But, from what I’ve read and heard over the past couple of years, my general impression is that sex ed classes are not meeting the needs of today’s teens. In Ontario, teens receive sex ed classes in Grades 7 and 9, which is not nearly enough, as far as I’m concerned. In fact, the newly published report recommends that sexual education be included in all elementary and high school grades. Far worse than Ontario is the province of Quebec, which decided last year to eliminate sex ed classes altogether in favour of an approach where teachers of all subjects are encouraged to include sex education in their classes. (I’m not sure how a math teacher is supposed to incorporate a discussion of, say, sexual intimacy while also teaching the quadratic equation, but maybe I’m just not being imaginative enough.) Not surprisingly, Sue Johanson was less than pleased with Quebec’s new mandate. And considering that just last week Alberta passed a law that allows parents to pull their kids out of classes in which religion or sex will be discussed, I’m going to guess that some kids in Alberta aren’t getting their fair share of sex ed either.
Okay, so now that this study has been conducted and published, what next? Is anything actually going to change? Are these teens who have indicated a subpar understanding of sexual health going to get more information? Or are governments and school boards going to pretend the study doesn’t exist? I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what happens, but my guess is that the sex ed battle has just barely begun.
Tagged as:
education,
sexuality,
teens
Alberta’s Bill44, the Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, has spurred a heck of a lot of controversy lately. Most concern is over Section 11.1, which allows parents who have children attending public school to pull their kids out of class if instruction includes “subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation.” So, what happens if a teacher plans to cover these topics in class? S/he must inform parents in advance so that they have the opportunity to decide whether they’d like to remove their children from class. If teachers fail to comply with the proposed legislation, parents may lodge a complaint with Alberta’s Human Rights Commission.
There are a whole whack of reasons why people are upset about this bill, and as the left battles the right, tempers are flaring. But outside of the political issues that Bill 44 stirs up (and, oh, there are plenty!), I think we need to stop and consider what children and teens will learn from this legislation.
Kids are sent to school to learn stuff (math, science, English, geography, etc.). But, in addition to presenting the usual academic fare, public schools should be a place where students learn about diversity, acceptance and tolerance. If this bill passes and parents start pulling their children out of class, we’re teaching young minds that if they disagree with someone or something, the best way to deal with the difference in opinions is to close their minds. Don’t listen to the debate and then formulate a point of view. Just opt out.
When I teach students how to write a persuasive essay, I tell them that the crux of a really solid argument is understanding the opposition’s point of view. In order to effectively persuade, you need to be able to address the other side’s concerns and sometimes even make a few concessions before you move on to argue your side. The thing is, if kids are learning to opt out of listening to the other side before they’ve even had a chance to fully formulate their own (i.e., not their parents’) opinions, we’re not teaching them to be critical thinkers. Rather, we’re teaching kids to close their eyes and put their hands over their ears whenever they encounter a viewpoint they (or their parents) disagree with. And I’m not so sure that’s a skill that’s going to serve a kid (or an adult) very well in the real world. Last time I checked, religion, sexuality and sexual orientation are part of the real world and part of people’s identities. Here’s hoping that public schools in Alberta will be allowed to continue teaching kids about the complexity of life and that every kid will be allowed to participate in the discussion.
Tagged as:
education,
law
Today, in the Academic and Scientific Writing class that I teach at a local community college, I started a unit on the persuasive essay and the art of crafting a convincing argument. In an attempt to stimulate class involvement and interest, I’ve decided to get the students to do a debate. The topic I chose (and this was actually based on student interest) is the following: should the cost of sex- reassignment surgery be covered by Canadian provinci al health care systems? Last week, when I asked students what types of controversial issues they were interested in debating, this was the only topic that elicited a response other than the usual apathetic, blank-eyed stares. Yes, people were actually up for debating this topic! Hurrah!
Now, today, when it came time to divide the class up into 2 groups, the pros and the cons, I thought perhaps the studen ts’ inherent opinions would facilitate the division. But, guess what? Out of the 13 people who attended class today, only ONE thought that sex-reassignment surgery should be covered by health care. One person! My heart sunk.
So, dear readers, tell me this: am I naïve? I really thought that amongst a group of young, 20-ish-year-old students, there would be a much more progressive attitude towards gender. Has anyone else had any experience with presenting trans issues in a non-women’s studies/non-queer studies context and had a more positive response?
Tagged as:
education,
sex-reassignment surgery,
trans
Confabulous badges!
