As the mother of a smart and lively five-year old daughter (and of two 6-month old boys,) I never cease to be amazed at the barrage of sexist commentary she’s assaulted with. Statements along the lines of: “What a beautiful little girl you are”, “I love your shoes”, and my favorite “Are you learning to shop just like mommy?” I often throw in a “she’s also a very smart girl,” but people just look at me blankly as though it’s a forgotten asset. When she was a baby, people frequently assumed she was a boy if she wasn’t dressed in an obvious “girly” color. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Pink, pretty and princesses dominate the little girl landscape. Although my twin boys are certainly told how cute they are, it’s rare that anyone comments on their clothing unless it’s to tease them about a possibly “girlish” color or style (after they’ve first assumed that they are girls.) So what is the effect of this “nurture” by society on our children?
For one thing, women are still largely under represented in leadership positions around the world. Out of 180 countries worldwide, only 27 have elected women presidents, and only 25 have appointed women prime ministers. Of the members of national parliaments worldwide, less than 19 percent are women.[i] In the U.S., in 2011, women made up 46.7% of the labor force but comprised only 14.1% of executive positions and only 16% of board seats in Fortune 500 companies.[ii] This lack of representation starts with sexism in childhood.
A recent example of this is Lego’s new line, specifically targeted at girls, called “Ladyfigs.” LadyFigs are a curvy, make-up and miniskirt wearing new figurine line that requires almost no construction – the antithesis to Lego, which is intended to help kids build spatial, mathematical and fine motor skills. It’s a line of stereotyped chicks – a beautician, a socialite, an animal lover, a popstar and a geek thrown in for good measure. What kind of role models are these to aspire to? It’s caused a lot of outrage amongst men and women alike who deplore the blatant sexism – both obvious and implied (girls can’t build) – of the new line. The debate has sparked multiple high profile editorials pushing back against the “princess culture” and a change.org petition that now has nearly 50,000 signatures. Unfortunately, Lego knows that there’s a real market for it’s new line and, for now, it’s holding its ground. So who’s right? What is Lego saying by marketing these toys? What is the effect of this “nurture?”
There’s a girls t-shirt I love that reads: “Future President, Not Princess.” It’s a gutsy statement that should be a given. When will it be?
[i] Statistics from the Women in Public Service Project
Interesting post and a much needed perspective over here. I’m bit hung up on this line though…
I’m not so sure the connection is that clear. As a parent, I tried to not force those gender roles on my daughter, but it was princess craziness none the less. Is none of that nature vs. nuture?
I think the question we have to ask instead is whether we are forcing nature?
There are a number of studies that show how self perception and others perception of women affect their performance and career/life choices. You may be interested in the following:
Steele, Claude M. (1997). A Threat Is in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 613-29
Correll, Shelley J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106, Issue 6, pp. 1691-1730.
Correll, Shelley J. (2004). Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspirations. American Sociological Review, Vol 69, Issue 1, pp. 93-113.
It would be foolish to deny the impact that culture can have on the individual and the choices they make. But it would be equally foolish to deny the impact that biology plays in general roles. I’m a strong believer than any individual can “buck the trend” at any time if they choose to do so, and make no value judgments in that regard, but to deny the fact that there are ingrained behavioral differences between women and men is simply unscientific and anti-intellectual – out of line with virtually all biological and psychological research on the subject.
Most are surprised to learn that our biological ancestors are not 1:1 male to female. In fact, we have around twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Geneticists are not surprised by this ratio because it is much larger in many species, sometimes 8:1 or more. Males are almost invariably across species more likely to die without reproducing than females. Males are where nature tinkers and takes risks in the genetic realm – males have far more outliers in nearly every dimension. One example is that there are more very high-IQ and very low-IQ men than women. The author mentions the disproportionate number of high-performing men, such as Fortune 500 CEOs, but what about low-performing men? They conveniently get no mention. Well, most homeless are male. Most incarcerated are male. Most crime victims are male. Most addicts are male. Etc., etc. To think that this is all “cultural” is nonsense. Males operate on the biological extremes and are more “disposable” genetically than women, while women are the central advancement mechanism for most species so they tend to be more stable on average. This is all just scientific fact – I draw no conclusions about which sex is “better” than the other. In fact, I’m a strong supporter in the idea of gender equality and equal opportunity for everyone. But something progressives must learn is that one cannot legislate away reality through government mandates, whether it is biological reality, economic reality, or any other reality.
Single, childless women under 30 earn significantly more on average than their male counterparts. They also disproportionately are accepted into and graduate from higher education institutions. Should I anxiously await my parity check in the mail from the U.S. Department of Social Justice, or should I just console myself with the fact that a few rich old guys that have nothing to do with me are the heads of Fortune 500 companies? Hint:The disparity has everything to do with when a woman chooses to leave her career to have children, not discrimination.
And if you are offended by somebody telling your little girl that she is pretty and take it as a social commentary, you will pretty much find a reason to be offended by anything. It’s a simple neutral pleasantry exchanged as a courtesy (how would a stranger know if your child is smart or not?) You may also be shocked to learn that not everyone who asks how you are actually cares.
I take issue with your statement about the disparity being caused by women leaving careers to have children. This disparity would not be there if our society supported mothers in the workplace by providing flexible work schedules, childcare and job security, among other benefits. If these things were in place, more women could continue to have successful careers and children- as many men do.
Although I am certainly aware of being gracious to social pleasantries, I think that the volume of the comments that focus on being pretty are not a positive influence on my daughter. It’s hugely important for kids to hear varied feedback about their qualities and abilities. This type of intense praise by society for being pretty can be very harmful. If you’re interested you can check out some the articles I posted in an above comment about how women’s self (and external) perception affects performance and future life/career decisions.
I would take issue with your assumptions. Lego is a Swedish company, and Sweden has long been hailed as a leader for gender equality, so there’s not much mileage to a discriminatory lego argument. Check out Lego City, Lego Star Wars and the other lines–lots of female legos out there with the same number of pieces.
You might want to also consider that men are discriminated against as being equal in parenting skills. Rhode Island in particular is extremely deferential to mothers as the preferred parent.
Maybe your daughter is just adorable and people are just eager to say so. How is it exactly that a stranger is supposed to comment on how smart she is/how well she can assemble legos/how her business acumen is sharp when they have never talked to her and she is 5? Remember too that many parents are reminded of their own children when they see small kids–it takes them back to the magical moments when their kids were little and there are deep sentimentalities there. They are being complimentary and just for a moment, they are escaping back to how grand it was when their kids still looked up to them before they were apprehended by a cell phone/DS/facebook etc.
I’d be cautious not to heave expectations on a 5 year old as presidential timber when a princess will do just fine. There are plenty of princesses around, but only one president. Hard to fill that bill.
Now you’re making a somewhat different argument. Originally you were saying that the disparity was due to sexist attitudes and stereotyping, but now you’re saying that it’s because we don’t sufficiently facilitate the decision many women make to leave their careers for a period to have children.
First of all, there isn’t really a disparity at all when you compare actual job positions and qualifications – the “disparity” only appears when you look at income in aggregate, which is intellectually dishonest and statistically invalid for lots of reasons. Men choose to work dirtier and more dangerous jobs on average, like plumbers and electricians, that tend to pay higher. 9 out of 10 workplace fatalities are still men, so I suppose if you want more women entering these fields and dying, then that will raise their aggregate income as well. But the real culprit, as I mentioned earlier and you seem to accept now as fact, is that women frequently leave during a critical period in their career to birth and raise children. Given our population growth, I don’t see any particular reason to incentivize childbirth more than we already do, but there would be something of an argument for certain low-skilled positions. In high-skilled professions, the effects on the economy would be devastating if government forced employers to promote women after a long maternity vacancy. How can an attorney simply leave work for a year or two or three? You can’t just pick up where you left off – cases have closed and opened, people have come and gone, even the law might have changed. Doctors can’t just leave and come back like nothing happened either – there are very real consequences to vacations from high paced fields. The idea that we should mandate pay parity without considering these effects is incredibly naive from an economic perspective. And where would you draw the line? Do women get one “free” child? Two? Do you draw the line at six kids? Ten? It’s not a slippery slope argument because allowing people to essentially become professional birthmothers for a period has very real ramifications for our society and most of them would be hugely negative.
RTW – Could I see your citations for these claims?
There are a few references in this article:
www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Also interesting: “Late last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that for the first time, women made up the majority of the workforce in highly paid managerial positions.”
Anecdotal, but my immediate manager and higher-up manager are both women (and they’re both great).
@PHL: It’s interesting you bring that up. I don’t have any children of my own, but as the (very) oldest grandchild in my family, I did have the opportunity to watch a number of young women grow up in American society, but within the context of a matriarchal and intellectual family as well.
To be honest, the younger women in our family didn’t tend to play with dolls because they weren’t purchased dolls. Their parents held the purse strings and held firm when the kids eventually watched TV or were told how to behave by their friends. So no, I don’t think that little girls are somehow naturally attracted to playing with dolls, playing house, dressing up, etc. from birth as a rule — although I’m sure that some are.
The young girls in my family were mostly given things like books and CDs as presents for their birthdays. They were always encouraged to go to college from a very young age, and as such, 2/3 of them have already graduated, with one still in her sophomore year.
It seems to be that our culture of TV, music, movies, clothing styles, and just the way people talk about boys and girls differently does have the greater impact here (not that my sample size of 3 female younger cousins is scientifically valid). But it just seems, and I may be wrong here, that when all the commercials and TV shows and toys targeted at girls are more superficial in nature and don’t focus on things like building and creating (legos example), you end up with the situation described in the original post.
Thanks for the write-up Josephine… my grandmother would be proud :)
@RTW: If you are going to cite things like this: “Single, childless women under 30 earn significantly more on average than their male counterparts. They also disproportionately are accepted into and graduate from higher education institutions.” the least you can do is provide a source, just like the author of the original post did.
Funny thing though, I at least agree with you (and have seen similar statistics) about men graduating at lower rates these days. There’s been a definite shift in how we teach our boys, and not all of it has left them feeling like there’s a place for them in higher education. I sincerely doubt there are many girls sitting in guidance counselor offices right now being told they just aren’t smart enough for college and should probably pick up a vocation like fixing computers or working on roofs.
You know what this post is missing? One of my all-time favorite Internet rants… That is a good question, Riley!
Oh, RTW, you’re such precious, little knee-jerker. Of course, you take as “neutral” the obviously skewed social pleasantries that people spew. If you think “neutral” exists you must be a [stereotype]. Oh, but did I button-hole you? By all means, complain…
But Jo, chillax. From my experience, I can tell you that despite these social cues, your parenting will have vastly more influence. At 5, she’s barely aware of the issues discussed here. I’m not disputing the validity of your argument. I’m just saying that if you’re a strong influence (guessing that’s true) the external inputs will be properly adjudicated when that adjudication is possible.
In the same way my [redacted] destroys her so-called peers – boy, girl, leopard or velociraptor – yours may well find the self-conception necessary to create consciously that thing people talk about…what’s it called…um…oh, yeah…the future!
Josie, I’m not sure those compliments or the toys are ‘sexist’. I respectfully think you might have your sensitivity dial turned up a bit too high on this.
I’m expecting my first in a few months; my partner (who works at a Womens’ Rights organization) is MUCH more interested in focusing on family and taking time off to do it. I’m planning on using only vacation and skipping the FMLA I’m entitled to. I have no interest in being cooped-up 24/7 with a baby for months, I’d rather be at the office. While I do know a number of ‘stay at home dads’, it’s only because their partners out-earn them or they can’t find work. Every Dad I know would rather take a breadwinner job than be home, while about half of my female friends drop out of the full-time workforce after having kids.
Do I think we need to beef-up FMLA and make it easier for everyone to have kids? Yes. Do I think it’s going to put more women in the corner office? Not at all; it might even make it worse.
Also, I think this is what RTW was referencing as far as college rates.
I left a high-paying, far-away executive gig in 2000 because it took too much time away from the kids. That’s how I ended up a 1099-er. So you know at least one who’d rather be home with the kids.
I completely side with the author here. As my girls grew, it was obvious the stress they were under from the normative pressures. I actively trained them to de-construct media messaging so they had a fighting chance. 11 – 16 year olds are pretty much the cruelest people on the face of the earth, and their socialization toward conformity is powerful.
I can’t blame any mother for freaking out at the slightest hint of normative socialization.
“I actively trained them to de-construct media messaging so they had a fighting chance.” — Those of us who fear for our future thank you in that you gave them *the chance* to decide for themselves. I don’t have kids, but it’s impossible to not see the changes since I was a kid in the 80′s.
The Internet and social media is a new factor, but we’re also watching more TV, and being shown more advertising than ever before, men and women alike. It’s going to affect how we behave, unless we actively think about what is the message being shown to us.
As my father – who put me and my brothers and sister through college by writing TV ads told me: if a major corporation is telling you something through the Idiot Box (TV), it’s a lie.
Can’t boil it down much simpler than that.