progressive family values

a blog about parenting from the left and beyond

Hitting Like a Grrrl April 26, 2009

I was caught off guard a few weeks ago when my four year old son came home from preschool saying things like, “Mommy, I don’t want to hear that story.  It’s a girl story,” and “I don’t play with girls,” and “That’s a girl toy!”  He emphasized the words “girl” and “girls” in a way that made me cringe…its a particular kind of sneer that I became familiar with back when I was, well, just a girl. Today, I’m not just a girl.  I’m a wife, mother, writer, educator, daughter…but above all, a woman.  And the kind of woman that I’ve become is the kind of woman who is concerned with all women…a feminist.  Maybe it was the first time I heard some boy on the playground sneer out girl like it was a curse word that I began to glean some vague idea of sexism.  I got used to that sneer, even hearing adult men, my peers, chastise one another for their degree of masculinity by using the word “girl” like an epithet:  “What?  Are you going to be a little girl about it Sean?” and “He’s got the handshake of a girl scout.”  But I got a nice, fresh shock when I heard my four year old use the word in such a way.  I must admit, it shook me, hurt me, pained me in ways that I’m not even ready to totally confront.  I felt like I had been slapped.  I was back on the playground in an instant.

Obviously my son didn’t see me as one of these kinds of horrible, stinky, cootie-infested animals because he wouldn’t have said the word “girl” in such a way in front of me.  My son loves me.  I’m not a “girl” to him.  He’s affectionate and loves to kiss his mom, dad and brother just for the heck of it…whenever he’s feeling particularly lovey-dovey, which is pretty often.  He’ll come up and say, “Squeeeeeezy hug!”, bear hug you to near death, then plant a slimy kiss right on your smacker.  It’s pretty cute.  And I love that my husband doesn’t push our son away, make him feel ashamed for kissing his daddy on the lips.  My good man bear hugs our boy right back and then offers up his lips for kissing. Our family (I’m the only woman in the family) is affectionate and we like it that way.  But over the past few years I’ve occasionally received comments that have a slightly critical and/or puzzled inflection about how my son “is so, um, affectionate and sweet.  He’s really sensitive, isn’t he?”  It doesn’t happen often, but from time to time a family member, or a new teacher at his preschool might make a comment, and when they do, they look to me, at me, and seem to suggest that I’ve done something to make my son “like that.”  My son is normal and healthy.  We just allow him to express his full range of emotions…including affection, which is something most American men probably have needed in their lives for a long, long time.

We’ve never intentionally tried to cultivate any particular gender leanings with our boys.  While I am a feminist, I guess I just sort of forgot (maybe selectively) how gender socialization would eventually come to claim my sons.  Sociological theories of gender identity development posit that “gender is a social construction rather than a biological given” (Bussey & Bandera, 1999, “Social Cognitive Theory of Gender Development and Differentiation“).  In other words, biology plays a part in the development of a child’s sense of their gender, but society plays, perhaps, an equal part.  We tell our children what behaviors, appearance, toys and media are appropriate to their sex based on the norms of our society.  Behaviors and appearance that vary from the norm are considered taboo and to be avoided, and there is a large amount of social pressure to conform to these norms.  If, for example, Johnny decides that he wants to watch the Cinderella movie instead of the dinosaur movie, we tend to steer him toward the dinosaur movie, sometimes in subtle ways, and sometimes in not-so-subtle ways.  We might tell Johnny, “Dinosaurs are for boys.  Cinderella is a girl’s movie,” or “You don’t want to watch the dinosaur  movie?  But dinosaurs are cool!”  Subtly implying that Cinderella is not “cool,” or that certain stories and movies are off-limits for Johnny if he really wants to be a boy.  Our fear is that if Johnny watches Cinderella-type movies too often, he will be confused about his gender identity and act more “like a girl,” a negative outcome for the parents of boys concerned with fitting into the norm.

I think of Simone de Beauvoir famously saying, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”  What de Beauvoir says is applicable to men too.  When it comes to my feminism, it has been mainly, erroneously, focused on women, not men.  Though lately, that’s been changing.  But back when our oldest son was about 20 months old, I wasn’t really too worried about sexism affecting him.  I went on many a play date where the mothers of toddler boys would say, “There’s just something different about little boys.  He just naturally goes for the cars, trucks and robots.  It’s biology, I guess.”  While I felt skeptical when I heard other mother’s saying such things, I noticed that as soon as my son was finished with his baby toys, he moved very easily, seemingly naturally,  into trains and cars and dinosaurs.  Then again, we didn’t buy him any dolls, or playthings that were particularly domestic (like a toy vacuum cleaner or kitchen set). I remember, though, entering Toys R Us for the first time in years.  I was astonished, perhaps naively, at how gender segregated the toys were.  While the girls’ section was amply supplied with pink kitchen sets and mini baby strollers…the boys’ side had no such boy version.  There weren’t any blue strollers with daddy-n-baby sets.  The girls’ side had very few pink cars, or bulldozers, and not even one policewoman dress-up outfits.  Likewise, the boys’ side had no nurse practitioner dress-up outfits, despite the fact that there are plenty of men who are nurse practitioners, and women who are law enforcement officers, and plenty of dads who push strollers, cook dinner and clean-up around the house.

My son has a slightly older cousin who he idolizes.  If cousin liked dinosaurs, our son liked dinosaurs.  If cousin liked Transformers, our son liked Transformers.  I didn’t see any problem with this.   It seemed natural enough for our son to look up to his older, cool cousin.  I didn’t think about the toys themselves…only that our son wanted to be like his cousin.  We just sort of went with the flow…he had Thomas the Tank Engine toys, mini soccer balls, Star Wars action figures, Pokemon, every Matchbox race car you could possibly imagine, cowboy hats and play cap guns, puzzles, robots of every kind…his closet was full of boy stuff, and I say that without a sneer.  He had all kinds of boyish movies in his collection; his favorites being Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, Cars, Shrek, Toy Story (I and II) and Transformers Animated.  We signed him up for soccer class through the city recreational program.  He wrestled extensively with his dad.  We paired him up with other little boys to make friends with.  We dressed him in very boy-oriented clothing…shirts with guitars, baseball bats and skateboards, pants and long shorts, race car shoes, baseball caps…a wardrobe mainly made up of four colors: blue, green, black and red.  My son has never been deprived of stereotypical models of American manhood.  And he’s got active male role models in his life: a guitar-playing, WWII trivia-loving, teacher dad, two grandpas (both who served in the military during wars), and my husband’s band mates (one married, one not).

But then our son went to preschool and began to make friends with a group of boys in his class.  Being slightly on the anti-social side in middle and high school myself, I suppose a part of me really wanted my son to fit in with the kids at preschool.  I encouraged him to make friends and play with the other boys in the class, and I saw preschool as an opportunity for my son to learn about sharing, community, leadership, empathy, discipline…and other relatively benign virtues.  It became clear, very quickly, that there was one little alpha-pup that boy-o-mine latched onto immediately.  Alpha Pup was the leader of a mini-gang of preschool boys who went around the playground imitating the Power Rangers, making potty jokes and generally proclaiming that certain things were for “girls” (with a sneer).  I have to admit, I was taken aback by how early and immediate this kind of socialization begins.  At first I sort of went with the flow, trying to convince myself that it was all just a “normal” part of his process of becoming a boy, but then I started noticing that Alpha Pup got in trouble more often than the other boys, and on a regular basis.  I felt guilty for encouraging my son to befriend someone who seemed to get him in trouble so often.  Alpha Pup hit, swore, taught boy-o-mine to give us the bird!  All at the ripe age of FOUR.

When I went to friends and family about this issue, many just brushed it off as “boyhood.”  But I couldn’t shake the image of my kid flipping me the middle finger.  In fact, it’s not just my friends and family who dismiss my concerns about the social environment that we’re raising our boys in.  There’s a new breed of scientists who increasingly believe that the differences between boys and girls are more biological than social.  Over the past few years there have been a rash of books that attempt to address the “problem” of the “boy brain.”  Says Peg Tyre, in her 2006 Newsweek article “The Trouble with Boys,” “Thirty years ago feminists argued that classic ‘boy’ behaviors were a result of socialization, but these days scientists believe they are an expression of male brain chemistry.”  It’s that old nature vs. nuture argument all over again.  What frustrates me is that researchers, parents and scientists seem to want a definitive answer to that old battle…and there isn’t one.  It seems obvious to me that boys are driven both biologically and socially.  Isn’t that obvious?  It seems obvious to me that girls are driven both biologically and socially.  To underplay the role of socialization in the process of a child’s development is to be ignorant…no matter how many PhDs or children you have.  For example, while human beings across the planet share a particular biological design, we seem to all behave in different ways, with different social norms that pertain to sexual norms.  Diffrent cultures set down a wide array of different social norms for members of social groups, despite the fact that a great majority of us were born with two arms, two legs, a brain and a vagina or a penis.  I have to ask, why tell my son to watch the dinosaur movie instead of Cinderella if it’s all biology?

Answer: because it isn’t all biology.  And if that is the case, then socialization is very important to the shaping of a child.  I have to wonder, ask, explore this (and many other) questions because my own child’s selfhood is at stake.  I’ve gotten some pretty intense reactions to some of my questions.  The idea that a feminist would try to actively shape her child’s (particularly a boy’s) worldview as feminist brings about the following responses: scoffing, throat-clearing, eye-rolling, laughing, the statement “You are sick,” and one face slap.  Yes, a face slap.  Yet, rightwing Evangelicals fight with tooth and nail to raise their children the way they see fit, and seem to believe pretty firmly that socialization has a very important influence on the development of the child.  I am about to write something that I hope I never write again; I couldn’t agree with the Evangelicals any more.  They are right.  I understand why very religious parents want to control and shape the kinds of things that their children are exposed to.  It is a parent’s job to show children the correct (right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, fair or unfair) way to behave in relation to other people.  For me, it’s not the Christian ideology that forms the basis of my moral compass…it’s feminism.  It’s an extremely subjective call to say that feminist principles and mothers have “hurt” children, or even devleopmentally disabled them.  I suppose I could say the same about Evangelical principles and mothers who selectively eliminate aspects of a curricula (Darwin’s theory of evolution, certain parts of history, the Big Bang theory) to fit the Christian ideology.  But I wouldn’t do that, because I respect a parent’s right to raise their children the way he or she sees fit, even if the principles that parent uses to guide him or her are different from my own.  This is America, isn’t it?

 

Gloria Steinem, My Hero, on Sarah Palin September 15, 2008

I love Gloria.  She just rules.  I just don’t think I could have said it anywhere close to better than she did in this LA Times Op-ed piece:

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing — the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party — are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women — and to many men too — who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can’t do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn’t say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn’t know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, “I still can’t answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?” When asked about Iraq, she said, “I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.”

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she’s won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain’s campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn’t know it’s about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate’s views on “God, guns and gays” ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let’s be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can’t tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin’s value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence-only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don’t doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn’t just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn’t just echo McCain’s pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, “women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership,” so he may be voting for Palin’s husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women’s Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

Thank you so much Gloria for clarifying those points for me, and for many other voters.