For the list of examples of absurd gendering, Norway brings us … eggs (newpaper article, in Norwegian). You have a choice of Princess Eggs (pink packaging, of course) and Pirate Eggs (blue packaging). Continue reading
Today, a girl in my daughters class asked my daughter “Why are you reading Harry Potter – that’s a boy’s book”. My daughter doesn’t care – she reads Harry Potter because she likes the story. But I’m confused – is Harry Potter really considered a boy’s book? If so, why?
The only thing I can really think of is that the gendering madness has reached a point where everything children do must be gendered, and hence a gender choice must be made for HP. It’s absurd, of course – why would HP be considered gendered? Sure, like so many children’s books it tends to cast boys as active and girls as passive, but it’s far from uniform (HP has a refreshing number of examples of girls in the active role), and anyway that’s such a cliché that it’s hardly specific to boy’s books.
Either way – it’s annoying that 10 year old children worry about this rather than just reading the books they like.
I’m constantly confused by this idea that things, all things, must be gendered. That gender should somehow be the one parameter that directs our preference in all things. Yes, yes, men and women are different, unisex is boring, etc. etc. But, really – there’s still a bunch of things where I can’t see gender having much importance, or a role at all.
Like beer. “Chick beer”? WTF?
What’s next – a masculine white wine?
Can we please stop with thins nonsense already.
Fair warning: rant ahead. See, I have this hot button about gendering stuff, and in particular about how we build up images of what genders are and what a person of a given gender do. I always did, but let me just say that having a daughter has done nothing to lessen my sensibility in the area.
There’s so so many ways we tell our kids what girls are and do, and what boys are and do. And then when they come back and tell us what we’ve taught them, we say “see, boys and girls just have different aspirations right from the start”. Again and again we forget (or ignore, or whatever) that gender is a social construct.
This is so, so prevalent (all-pink girls section in the clothes store, anyone). What triggered me today was this little gem I found on YouTube (via Sociological Images):
Innocent, you say? Sure – except it tells little boys watching this they should strive to be heros and do stuff that will be admired, and it tells little girls that their role in spots is to admire the boys as they do their heroics. Which is not a good role model for girls who want to play ball themselves (did I mention that my daughter is really good at sports? No? Well, she is). In fact, it’s a model that tell girls that sports is not really for them, that their role is a passive one. With enough messages like this, active girls will go elsewhere – or learn to not be active. ’cause, you see, the message of “boys do, girls admire” is one of these patters that we (possibly unconsciously) teach our kids over and over, with TV adds being just one channel.
Messages that push women into a passive role (in sport or in society at large) are not good for our girls; as a father to a girl I’m annoyed by stuff like this. And frankly, messages that teach boys they should expect that a woman’s role is to admire them is not good for the boys either. These little boys in the ad may do good in basketball. But they will also grow up in a world where young women do better than young men in college, get better university degrees, and will get good jobs. These young women will not be looking for a boyfriend who expect them to sit passive and admire him (while he plays NBA2021 on his game console).