This post was initially a long tirade about how companies are suffocating our children with their own brand of childhood that separates girls and boys into two distinct aisles at the toy store and well beyond that. But when I started to sound like my own broken record (Ive been writing about this for a long time now), I thought, "I'm just going to say what I really think." Without intellectualizing, without supporting my argument with all of the good research and articles that are out there. Nah--just going to put it out there.
So here's what I think about the whole pink/princess culture that is dominating girlhood--that has so many thinking that girls just won't play with things like microscopes, building sets, and science kits unless they're pink and purple.
We shouldn't need petition after petition to convince companies of what we all already know--that girls are smarter than what is being offered to them.
What we need to do is just rip the pink-princess band-aid right off instead of slowly lifting the edges a little at a time. Because doing it slowly is hurting girls--not helping them. And I've got news--girls don't need it. This is not rocket science--it is simple logic. What girls really need is more choice. They need to SEE options. If they don't see it--they can't choose it.
And when you rip off that band-aid, sure, it might hurt for a split second. There even might be a tear. But once it's completely off-- they'll just run off and play as if nothing happened. I promise.
Have you seen the new Lego Friends ad that has been making its way around social media?
It seems really nice, right? A smiling girl with her creation. The text that says, "She's an explorer, a builder, a designer, a creator, and an inventor." In this ad, Lego puts a new twist on the now famous ad (below) from 1981 that went viral last year when Lego Friends was first introduced in which a little redheaded girl in braids, dressed in all blue against a brown background, holds her Legos proudly without any pink or purple in sight. What many pointed out about what made this particular ad so great was the obvious non-gendered way Lego marketed to kids back then. It seems that once-upon-a-time there was no need to appeal to girls' sense of color or to even address the audience by gender. The copy appeals to all children and addresses them as such without ever using the words girl or boy. This is also evident in the name of the sets: Universal Building Sets. Clearly, these sets are for everyone--boys and girls alike.
Conversely, the latest ad for Lego Friends targets "she" only. Yes, the girl pictured is in blue (yay!) and is proudly holding her Lego invention (that is loaded with pink and purple, of course), but the ad is all about girls as is Lego Friends. In a conversation on Facebook that asked for thoughts about it, I said: The thing for me is that I can see Lego trying to hearken back to the 1981 ad that shows a little girl in blue jeans and blue tee proudly holding her Legos (by the way--this girl appears to be much older here). But the 1981 ad doesn't identify which gender the Legos are actually for; instead, it allows for all children to be included in imaginary play. [Whereas the new] ad continues to perpetuate the marketing scheme that there are toys for girls and toys for boys. I know that there are boys who like Lego Friends as well--this ad excludes them. Yes, it appears to be lovely and sweet. It appears to tell girls they are unique, they can do anything. But this ad is sneaky. And if you place this ad side by side with the 1981 ad--it still lacks the 'what it is is beautiful' sentiment that tells ALL children they are capable of anything. Just putting a girl in blue doesn't make that happen.
In addition, an article in Britain's The Telegraph questions (as have others) whether "pinkifying" toys, specifically Legos which are supposed to encourage girls in areas of building and science, is helping or hurting. When we separate girls and boys in this way, we are telling both sexes that girls can't be interested in things like science unless they are color-coded or include things like puppies and cupcakes. The article quotes a Lego "spokesperson" who says, “'We’ve always had Lego bricks that are pink and we’ve got a wide variety of different sets," adding, "'We don’t say ‘this is for girls’. It’s up to the child or the parent to make the choice.'” That is a completely false statement. First of all, take a look at the 1981 ad and you'll see that Lego has not always had pink bricks. I'd also ask them to review their own advertising for Lego Friends which does not include a single boy (and no male minifigs), as well as the initial announcement that was made when Lego Friends was first introduced in which they admit omitting girls from their product marketing and advertising until last year while specifically saying that the new sets are aimed at "girls five and up" and not "kids five and up." [What an easy fix!]
What continues to boggle my mind is why Lego never once, over the past ten to fifteen years, thought to simply open up their existing product lines to girls--or never once thought girls might actually love the Harry Potter sets, or might be into constructing a helicopter or a police station. Yes, the new ad is nice, but it does indeed address girls only and, even though it attempts to look like the 1981 ad, unfortunately it completely misses the beauty and simplicity of their past message that all Legos are for all kids. What happened?
Last year, I did my own homemade version of the ad to show that it is not that kids have changed forcing companies to adopt "separate but equal" and "pink marketing" strategies--in fact, it is the other way around. I didn't change the tagline except to say that "What it is is still beautiful." Because it is.
I will say that the newest ad is a step in the right direction and I recognize that Lego seems to be trying to broaden their gender horizons, however, the message is the same: girls and boys can't possibly play with the same toys. We must continue to deconstruct media that continues to perpetuate gender stereotypes--even when it seems to be sweet and harmless. With that in mind, here is what I'd like to say to Lego: I know you are capable of making advertising that appeals to ALL children because you've done it before. I have the proof and so do you. It's not that difficult, so just do it.
Princesses can be all things to all girls. Just ask Disney or take a look at their latest attempt to strengthen their princess brand--a video that basically says if you are a girl, you are a princess first and foremost, and then you are everything else:
Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" comes to mind only according to Disney girl philosophy it is, "I am a princess, therefore I am." Don't get me wrong--I am not saying the message here is horrible nor is it going to solve the world's problems. On the surface it seems incredibly sweet and empowering with lines like, "I have heard I am beautiful, I know I am strong." Deeper analysis, however, is necessary especially when it comes to a massive corporation like Disney continuing to further their marketing agenda which is to say continuing to push their billion dollar princess empire. In so doing, they are still trying to fit all girls into a single model--even while expanding that model. I do give them some credit for trying to broaden the very definition of princess to include adjectives that go beyond the typical identifiers, but in my opinion they are still getting it wrong. Yes, a princess can be all the things described in the video, but not all girls can be a princess.
In anticipation of those who would say I'm somehow evil for not wanting girls to be princesses or that there is nothing wrong with playing dress up in a tiara, gown, and glass/plastic slippers--let me reiterate that I don't have a problem with princess in general or little girls who play dress up once in awhile. While this is the Princess Free Zone, princess is alive and well and not going anywhere. I just felt, in a world in which princess is a major force in the lives of girls, there needed to be an equal and opposite place where girls know they can be free spirits without the tiara because I have a daughter who is living proof that all girls do not fit into that mold, and there are many like her. But this video surpasses the idea of princess as simply fantasy play; instead, it takes on a much more serious tone by normalizing the idea that every girl is a princess in her everyday life.
That is the issue. This blanket assumption that every little girl is, needs, or wants to be a princess is patently false. By replacing "girl" with "princess," it's almost as if Disney would have us believe that girls are somehow biologically destined to be a princess first and a girl second, as if there is some dominant "princess gene" found in their DNA. While some girls do enjoy the princess fantasy, it is only a single expression of girlhood. Princess should not come first--being a girl should come first: a brave girl, a compassionate girl, an athletic girl, an intelligent girl, a funny girl, etc. Why does there have to be one monolithic trope that attempts to put all girls into one category? Simply put--because it sells. And this video goes even further to broaden the appeal by incorporating princess as not just a facet of girlhood, but the very essence of girl.
You might have seen this video of Sonya Sotomayor that speaks to empowering all kids through a conversation about careers with Sesame Street's Abby Cadabby.
When Abby enthusiastically proclaims she wants "a career as a princess!" Justice Sotomayor explains to her that while "pretending to be a princess is fun...it is definitely not a career" or "a job." (And the juxtaposition of Justice Sotomayor in her black robe against Abby in her princess costume is striking.) She goes on to provide Abby with a host of career options including teacher, lawyer, doctor and even a scientist. She makes it clear that princess isn't the be-all to end-all and not a realistic aspiration which it shouldn't be. As a result, Sotomayor places princess exactly where it should be: a fun thing to pretend.
Interesting to note as well is that this is not an issue for Disney with respect to boys. You won't see Disney making a video that addresses boys as a prince, for instance, or anything else for that matter. That's because boys are offered a variety of models to choose from and are represented in many imaginative ways including super heroes, warriors, ninjas, pirates, explorers, etc. There is no single one role or form of play that is pushed on boys the way that princess is pushed on girls. We need to ask ourselves why that is, as well as how princess culture affects boys in general. Also, what about boys who actually like princess themselves? How about girls who want nothing to do with princess? Why is it so difficult to accept that children are just as diverse as adults and that, by pushing princess onto girls (and boys) in this way, it either reinforces stereotypes or alienates girls who don't see themselves this way--either way, it's not good.
I believe that attempting to turn the idea of princess fantasy into reality is problematic. This is not about princess play--it is about allowing children to be free from stereotypes, to explore their identities without an identity being forced onto them. There are princesses who are real, and I'm pretty sure that real-life princesses are not all like Snow White. What I do know is that they are all girls. So, Disney--go ahead. Make a great video that tells girls that they are strong, that they are brave, that they are kind, generous...all those things. Just drop the princess so girls know they can choose to be whatever they like.
My daughter loves sports and has played soccer, baseball and is currently playing basketball. She's a really good athlete--highly coordinated and focused. Coaches love her. There are a few girls in the basketball league she's playing in, but she is the only one on her team. And the only one with really short hair.
Last night, after practice, she told me and my husband that one boy on the team would not leave her alone. Last week, she told us, was when he first asked her if she was a girl or a boy. After she told him she was a girl, she said, "He moved away from me."
This week he continued to ask her questions and make comments. He asked why her hair was so short to which she replied, "Because I like it that way." Then he asked, "What are you doing here?" She told him, "The same thing you are." When she explained this to us--she said, "That was such a stupid question, 'what are you doing here?' What does he think I'm doing here? Playing basketball!" Then she said to us, "You know--boys and girls aren't really that different. Why doesn't he get that?"
While it's upsetting to me that my daughter has to continually defend herself as a girl just because she has short hair and plays sports right alongside the boys, I do understand how her appearance can sometimes confuse people, children especially. In general, we have come to accept that confusion and Gabi is now quick to respond without taking offense. She is comfortable in her own skin and always has been. I have warned her in the past that some people might ask her not just about her gender, but some might even make fun of her, or worse, bully her. She is aware of these potential situations, but it has never stopped her from expressing her true self. And I've watched as she has become even more confident about who she is. Most of the time she is fine with people asking; it is only when someone seems to reject her statement--that she is a girl--she tends to anger.
For instance, over the summer, while she was playing volleyball with some boys at our local pool, she ran down from the volleyball court crying telling me that the boys didn't believe her when she told them she was a girl. They had called her a liar. What I discovered was that she was bothered more by the fact that they were calling her a liar than anything else. This is one thing she will not stand for and I can't blame her. In this instance, I asked her if she wanted me to say something to them. She said yes. So I went over to the boys who were now sitting on the grass and introduced myself. I told them that she was my daughter and that, indeed, she was a girl and that she had not lied. They nodded their heads without meeting my eyes.
Last night, she let us know that she wanted us to say something regarding this particular boy. I am thankful that she is able to communicate her feelings with us and tells us how we can help. We plan on talking to the coach to let him know what is going on and let him address the team. As for the boy, we told her to let it go and simply walk away if he says anything to her again. I told her she does not have to prove to anyone that she is a girl. I said, "This is his problem, not yours." I can't imagine the level of frustration in having to persuade others of your identity all the time. I applaud my girl for her strength of character, her absolute resolve, and her self-confidence. At seven-years-old--she already knows that she is enough.
BULLIED: What every parent, teacher and kid needs to know about ending the cycle of fear" by Carrie Goldman is a comprehensive, reality-driven and solution-based book that was inspired by the author's own experience after her daughter was bullied at school for having a Star Wars water bottle. After blogging about the experience, and receiving countless positive responses, she decided to do the research. If you are at all concerned with the state of bullying in our culture as well as perplexed as to what you can do to help both the victims of bullying and the bullies themselves, this book is for you.
Having had to deal with my own daughter being teased and taunted about her choices, I was interested in the particular section entitled "Societal Pressure to Choose Gender Typical Interests." Younger children, especially, are vulnerable to having extremely inflexible ideas about gender and that can quickly turn on those who do not fit perceived cultural norms of male and female. Further on in the book, Goldman helps to unravel the reasons behind these stereotypes and presents possible solutions with chapters like "Calling on Toy Retailers to Eliminate Gender-Based Marketing" which is a topic that seems to be gaining traction in the media right now.
I found the specific examples Goldman utilizes throughout the book to be helpful, but more important to note is that a good portion of the book focuses on how to handle each potential episode from elementary-aged schoolyard-type of bullying to cyber-bullying. The book is broken out into three sections: The first is titled "Katie's Story" which relays the author's personal and emotional connection to the topic through her daughter's experience; the second is "Kids at High Risk for Peer Victimization" which delves into the underlying social and psychological stigmas that are often at the root of who is targeted; and, the third section "Where Do We Go from Here? Prevention, Intervention, and Reconciliation" covers the numerous ways to address a variety of scenarios.
Issues that surround bullying are multi-faceted and extremely complex. Goldman provides a context with which to understand the many ways bullying affects all involved--from the victim, to the bystander, to families, and the bully. By approaching the issue from a very personal perspective, she is able to truly connect to the reader because we know she has had to deal with the effects of bullying as a parent. But she has also done her homework and provides an extensive bibliography, list of resources including online and children's books, as well as examples of some programs that are doing positive things on the bully-prevention front. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is trying to not only undersand the under-pinnings of this social epidemic, but also for those who would like to be part of the solution.
Having a kid means understanding that anytime or anywhere you might find yourself in the middle of a very serious and deep conversation. In my experience, one minute you can be talking about a new toy, and the next whether or not you can come back as a tree after you die (true story). Children have an uncanny ability to reveal their curiosities through the most seemingly innocent ponderings, and suddenly we find ourselves having to explain something complex like the theory of evolution without a moment's notice.
Many of the conversations I have with my daughter take place while driving. We'll be headed wherever and out of the backseat comes, "Mom--why do there have to be wars?" or "Mom--why did that man kill Martin Luther King?" Recently, Gabi said matter-of-factly, "Girls can't do the same things that boys do, Mom." Granted, this is a discussion we have had consistenty since she was about four. Being that she has always tended toward things traditionally considered "boy," she recognized early the perceived differences between the sexes. Typically, she has been the only girl in a number of instances that highlight those differences. She is usually the only girl at boys' birthday parties. She has been the only girl on her baseball team. Her playdates are primarily with friends who are boys. Invevitably, these situations lend themselves to questions and observations about her which come from both adults and kids alike.
So, the whole "girls can't do what boys do" has come up before, but inevitably as she gets older the conversations become more complex and the follow-up questions more thoughtful and intelligent. When kids are little, the differences between boys and girls can seem miniscule. From sports to academics to relationships--both sexes seem to enjoy a similar trajectory and we are quick to let them know, at this stage, that a girl can do anything a boy can do. But soon the divisions between the sexes in relation to specific social boundaries can become difficult to navigate as well as more obvious. Women face uphill battles when it comes to entering certain career paths, for instance, and we know are still experiencing a gap in the pay scale.
There is nothing worse for a a parent than having to admit to your children that life isn't perfect or fair. At some point, your child will face some level of hardship and one of our jobs as parents is to prepare them for those times when they will need to call upon their inner-strength in order to get through it. While we have probably all told our children that they are capable of anything, and that with hard work and persistence, they can achieve whatever they put their mind to it, we know that it isn't always that easy. Situations will arise in which they may find themselves seemingly without recourse and a frustrating feeling that certain things in life are simply unattainable because "that's just the way things are."
Maria Pepe
Prepared for another discussion about gender with my daughter, I turned around to look at her. "Why do you say that?" I asked. "What can't girls do that boys can?" "Well," she said, "they can't play in the Major Leagues...and there's never been a girl president." She was right, of course, on both counts. So I said, bluntly, "That's true. They can't. At least not right now." There was a disappointed look on her face. I continued, "But that doesn't mean that it will never happen, Gabi." She asked me what I meant by that. I explained to her that things change and asked her if she remembered the story of Maria Pepe. In the early 70s, Maria Pepe was the first girl to play Little League in New Jersey, but her story takes a decided turn when she is told that even though she was just as good as the boys (she had tried out and was made starting pitcher) she would not be allowed to play because she was a girl. The organization NOW picked up her case and sued the league. Eventually Maria Pepe won the suit that would allow girls to play in the Little Leagues; sadly, however, she was too old to play by that time. She was profiled on the wesbite Makers. I still can't watch her video without getting emotional because I see the joy my daughter has when playing and realize that Maria Pepe was robbed of that joy.
Gabi told me she did remember her. I said, "What does her story tell you?" "That someday there might be girls who can play in the Major Leagues?" she asked. I told her that I believed there would be a time when that happened. I also told her to think about it this way: "If it hadn't been for Maria Pepe, you might not be playing baseball right now." As for the president comment--I explained that there would be a woman president and probably soon. I added, "You have to remember there was a time when women couldn't even vote."
My daughter in uniform
"Gabi," I continued, "if there is something you feel strongly about, like playing baseball on a high school team, you will have to fight for it. You can help make change by showing others what is possible. And by not giving up. I will help you if that is something you really want." She nodded her head.
I'm not sure if she really understands the underlying message--she is only seven. But I will keep telling her that progress takes time. I will continue to point out those women who have come before us and made sacrifices so that we might be better off. And I will keep telling her that she truly is capable of anything, but that doesn't mean it won't be tough sometimes. My hope is that she will realize that boxes are for shoes--not people--and that nobody can ever put her in a box if she doesn't allow them to. In the meantime, I will wait for the next deep conversation.
Introducing a new PFZ tee to add to our collection. This one is for the science enthusiast and features the character Lula from the book "Super Tool Lula: The Bully-fighting Super Hero." Your girl likes math and is definitely smart enough to do homework! Just watch her "shoot for the stars!"
I had a conversation with my mother not too long ago about how I learned to read. Being that I have been reading to my daughter since she was a baby, I started thinking about my own childhood and realized that I had no memories whatsoever of my parents reading to me. Literally, none. I was born in 1965--back when parenting was not so all-consuming as it is now, nor as child-focused. Obviously, things are different now, but I still wondered how I learned to read without having been read to. So I called my mom one day and asked her. Her answer was immediate and simple: "Sesame Street," she said.
Ahh...so I was read to. Just not by my parents, but by the beloved characters and people of Sesame Street. I thought this was pretty interesting considering I developed such a love of books and reading that I eventually became an English major for which I have bachelor's and master's degrees. And I do have vivid memories of watching Sesame Street and can even recall specific favorite sketches of mine from the show.
The same goes for Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Who doesn't remember the introduction and the song that I'm sure many of us could sing on cue while imagining Mister Rogers hanging up his sport coat for a knit sweater and changing his hard shoes for comfortable sneakers? We knew that meant he was going make us his priority for the next half hour. And that's exactly what he did. Fred Rogers was a beacon of kindness, compassion, and patience. Yes, looking back we might think of him as a bit schmaltzy (and of course, who can forget Eddie Murphy's parody on SNL?), but through the eyes of a child--he was an endearing figure who could make us each feel unique even with that awkward box between us.
Recently, I've been reminded of Fred Rogers through posts on Facebook. I guess with the political spotlight on Big Bird and PBS it makes sense. However, isn't it telling that when we think of PBS, a network that offers everything from dramatic series to news and science shows, we immediately think of Sesame Street and its educational shows for children? That's because their contribution to the education of millions of children is invaluable--and we all know it. After all, if it's how I learned to read, I'm sure there must be others.
This video in particular struck me. I had seen it before, but had to watch it again. It is of Fred Rogers in 1969 testifying before the Senate Committee to defend the budget for public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which included his own show, and which President Nixon was threatening to cut in half. At that time the grant in question was for twenty million dollars.
Watching him soften those who initially seem ready for a fight is awe-inspiring, but it tells you exactly the kind of authenticity Fred Rogers possessed. He embodies the term he uses, "expression of care," to describe his particular beliefs about children and it comes through in every ounce of his being. But, to me, what is truly amazing about Fred Rogers is his genuineness--the person we see testifying is exactly the person we imagine him to be from his show. We hear the same tone of voice with its almost lullaby-ish, slow rhythm taking his time to explain the emotional issues he deals with on his show. We see a man who deeply believes in children and whose sincerity cannot be denied. What is even more incredible is his ability to connect with adults by speaking exactly as he does to children--gently, but firmly--until they come to understand the significance of educational television that actually engages children in very real ways. By the end of his testimony, it was obvious that he had convinced the committee to keep the budget in tact. I believe if they could have--they would have handed him a check right then and there.
Fred Rogers said: “We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It's easy to say 'It's not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.' Then there are those who see the need and respond. I consider those people my heroes.” Wow. What a concept--shared responsibility. There seems to be a lack of this belief in modern society by many--that we are each other's keepers. That by taking care of those around us, it lifts all of us. That if one child fails--we all fail.
In 1969 I was four years old--just the time that I would have been learning to read from Sesame Street and becoming a better person from Mister Rogers. With all that's going on in the world today, with all that our children are exposed to on a daily basis, we must continue to fight for children as Fred Rogers did. We need more people who don't just pay lip service to our children and the value of education, but who stand up for them as individuals whose needs, like a delicate orchid, must be carefully tended. Sadly, children today will not know Mister Rogers unless we show them clips from YouTube. But when we do, we can tell them that he was a real hero.
Every day there are numerous articles and stories about children who defy gender stereotypes. It seems that kids who dare to be themselves in the midst of a society that often disapproves of their choices are incredibly newsworthy--and they are becoming more and more noticed in both positive and negative ways. But why? It's not as if these children have some hidden agenda to change gender stereotypes. No underlying need to be different for the sake of shaking things up. They do not wake up every day and think of ways to rebel, or possess a subconcious wish to be targeted or bullied. Nor are they trying to change the world by making a personal or political statement.
No. What they are doing is openly loving themselves--something that becomes an elusive goal as we get older and a prime reason for psychotherapy for many. As adults, it seems we need constant reinforcement that tells us loving ourselves "just the way we are" is the only viable path to genuine happiness (Dr. Phil calls it being our "authentic selves."). Sometimes, we might even be punished for showing our true selves because it means going out into the world without apology. This can seem selfish to some. Unaware to others. Even crazy. So, when children exhibit the ability to be authentic--we become sudden onlookers of tightrope walkers, magicians, of those who inspire both awe and fear. We might wonder how a child can be so oblivious to those standards and boundaries we believe we've made perfectly clear. Or perhaps we wish we could be that brave.
What I have come to understand and know intimately is that the purity with which children develop their identity and self-love is directly linked to a significant factor: supportive parents. When we see a child who broadly steps outside of prescribed gender roles--a little girl with a buzz cut wearing boy shorts or a little boy with a pink tee or long hair--it is inevitably because a mom or dad let their kid make their own choices. It shouldn't be a big deal, yet it is because we are all part of a system that tends to punish those who are different. We know all-too-well the potential consequences of unorthodox behavior which is part of why we fear our children's fearlessness.
My daughter's words
A piece in the Huffington Post articulates this struggle. "Why I Stopped Trying to Make my Daughter be Pretty" by Shannon Bradley-Colleary is a perfect example of how parental acceptance is key to a child's self-preservation, but also how we can be torn between societal pressure and doing the right thing. Colleary explains an incident when she "used psychoanalysis" to persuade her daughter to wear her hair down for pictures confessing that "underlying my bid for her emotional well-being was the down-and-dirty truth: I wanted her to look pretty in her school pictures, her cascading hair framing her face, so I could show her off to friends and relatives." I confessed much the same thing in my post "You're her mother--you can say no." when I wanted my daughter to wear a red velvet dress for her picture with Santa. I would call these moments "tipping points" in which you can exactly identify the moment that you say to yourself, as Colleary does, "I'm over it. I'm letting it go."
photo via Huffington Post
Around the World in a Dress and a Skirt by Nils Pickert is yet another example of a parent who understands the importance of acceptance. You might have seen the picture that went viral of him in a red skirt holding the hand of his young son who is in a red dress. He is now speaking out about his experience and sums it up beautifully: "The ability to make these choices is his birthright -- a right that I should help him to exercise, since I am responsible for his birth."
As a parent who has gone through this very emotional struggle--I get it. I have gone from trying to mix up my daughter's wardrobe with hints of "girl" things--to now going straight to the boys department without even glancing over at the girls section. I have come to fully embrace and respect my daughter's choices when it comes to how she expresses herself. And, once in awhile, she surprises me by choosing to wear her little silver hoop earrings, or asking if she can use my lipgloss. It's all good.
So, do parents deserve a pat on the back for allowing their children to simply be themselves? Of course not. But we must acknowledge that there are some who would not allow their son to wear a dress or their daughter to cut her hair short and also recognize why it can be such a challenge. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the value of parents who go outside their well-worn comfort zone to foster a child's individuality by letting them explore their identities because research shows that inhibiting their curiosity can do great harm. We all talk a good game about self love and self acceptance--we need to show our kids we truly believe it. They will thank us when they are adults living healthy and happy lives.
I came across this picture the other day on Facebook from Explorations Early Learning's page. They had picked up the photo from Flickr and added their own text, "Real men play with dolls." I couldn't help wondering what others would think of this photo. Would they find it sweet and endearing? Or would they think this little boy has no business holding a doll much less feeding it?
(photo courtesy of Sharon Pruitt)
Personally, my first thought was: What a sweet image. A young boy cradling a doll while giving it a bottle. It sparked a memory of the first time I saw my husband feed our infant daughter which was very emotional for me. Seeing a grown man hold a delicate, fragile, little being is a beautiful thing, but at the same time it can seem foreign precisely because we do not see little boys playing with dolls or taking on that kind of nurturing role in general. It's natural for women and girls to want to hold and feed a baby--that's what we say, right? Women were born to be mothers. Of course, that is a false assumption as well--just because women can give birth does not make them desire motherhood. And, unfortunately, we don't give males the benefit of taking on the role of caregiver until they have babies themselves. Then we expect them to jump right in with all of those necessary nurturing duties.
The picture also reminded me of a talk I gave at a local Atlanta charter school to a group of fourth grade girls. The school brought in a person each week who could offer something inspirational to their students. I was honored to be asked because a large part of what I do is helping to bring awareness to issues of gender especially with children. I am a firm believer that instilling compassion and tolerance in children from a young age can prevent future bullying and I knew I had an opportunity to do that with this group of girls.
After I explained to them what I did, spoke a little about Princess Free Zone and my book Super Tool Lula, I began a conversation with them about stereotyping. First I asked them if they knew what the word meant. A few tried to answer, but could only come up with some vague examples. I told them that stereotyping is when we describe a certain group of people in specific ways by making assumptions based on where a person comes from or how they look. "Essentially," I told them, "it is when we use the word all as in 'all boys play sports.'" I asked them if they were all the same because they were girls to which they nodded their heads in unison while saying, "No." They seemed to understand and agree that stereotyping was not a good thing.
Next I asked them if they thought it was okay for a boy to play with a doll. They said no. I asked them why. One girl raised her hand and said, "because dolls are for girls." I told her that was an example of stereoytping. Then I said to the group, "Let me ask you a question. Do boys grow up to be fathers?" They all said yes. I asked, "Do fathers hold their babies?" They all said yes. "Do fathers change diapers?" They all said yes. "Do fathers love their babies?" They were all looking at me now--slightly confused, definitely challenged. I then asked, "So why can't a boy play with a doll?"
The next day, the assistant principal emailed me to tell me that the girls were still talking about me and had been really affected by the discussion. I would have been happy to know that I had caused one girl to rethink gender roles.
The amazing playwright, performer, and activist Eve Ensler said: "I think the whole world has essentially been brought up not to be a girl. How do we bring up boys? What does it mean to be a boy? To be a boy really means not to be a girl. To be a man means not to be a girl. To be a woman means not to be a girl. To be strong means not to be a girl. To be a leader means not to be a girl. I actually think that being a girl is so powerful that we've had to train everyone not to be that. " Isn't this really at the core of allowing boys to play with a doll, for example? By constantly sending this message to boys that they should in no way resemble a girl, by not allowing them to show their nurturing side without denigrating their masculinity, by reminding them that being like a girl makes them less than, we are doing a great disservice to boys and men.
While Princess Free Zone primarily focuses on girls with regards to gender stereotyping, it is impossible to ignore how boys are affected by this social disease as well. In other words, in order to change the status quo on what it means to be a girl, we must also change how boys are pigeon-holed into often even stricter limitations of what it means to be male, and begin allowing them the full spectrum of being a human being. It is a two-way street. Only when both sexes can be free of these limitations will we have true change. So, go ahead, let your son play with a doll if he wants. He just might be a better man because of it.
Friday, May 24, 2013 at 7:09PM 
