Can our kids go gender-free? Yes, if we'd let them, reckons Griselda Heppel
Dr Javid Abdelmoneim with pupils from Lanesend, Isle of Wight |
We may just have
come to the end of the summer holidays but anyone watching BBC Two’s fascinating class
room experiment with 7 year-olds, No More
Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender-free?, should feel they’ve had a lesson they’ll never forget. By challenging some of the silly stereotypes
that children of this age have, sadly, already taken on board, the idea was to
show all of them, whatever sex, that with regard to what they want to do in
life, the sky’s the limit. ‘Everyone can choose to be anything they want,’ cried
one boy after discovering that, just as girls can become car mechanics and
architects, so can boys go in for ballet and make-up artistry. Hurrah!
Good news though
this is, I can’t help asking – why is it news?
How, in the name of our children’s health, did we get to the point where 7
year-olds – interviewed before the experiment - have already decided that
‘girls are good at being pretty’ and ‘boys are better at being in charge’? Nearly 100 years after women won the vote and
with rafts of Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination legislation on the
statute book, sexist stereotypes are aliver and weller than they have ever
been. I’m so cross I don’t even care
that those aren’t words.
Because while we
can all be guilty of following – instead of questioning – traditional lines of
thought, the real villains are those creating
traditions that were never there before.
Yup, the manufacturing companies. The people who tell us not just that
boys wear blue and girls wear pink (yawn, yawn), but that boys’ shoes are
Leaders, tough enough to run around in, climb trees and yes, you’ve guessed it,
be in charge, whereas girls must wear flimsy Dolly Babes (thank you, Clarks,
who until now I held in high esteem).
The divide goes
further: that great universal building toy, Lego (remember when it was just red
and white bricks?) now comes in sets with names like ‘Andrea’s and Stephanie’s
Beach Holiday,’ ‘Emma’s Ice Cream Van,’ and ‘Willy’s Butte Speed Training.’
When challenged,
the standard response from toy/clothes/shoes/book/household goods manufacturers
is that they’re giving customers what they want – an outrageous claim, since
the very creation of gender-based products removes all choice of buying
universal ones. Sneaky, too, since the real reason is screamingly obvious:
profit. Divide the market and you double it. Buy pink wellies for your daughter
and your son will refuse to wear them, so you can’t pass them on and will have
to shell out for new blue/black/grey/spiderman/whatever ones for him.
Indeed, when
it comes to merchandising, the manufacturers go further: Skye, the only female
character from the popular series, Paw
Patrol, is inexplicably absent from ‘boys’ wellies,
As a children’s
writer, I find this very depressing. We are told all the time that girls will
read stories about boys, while boys won’t read ones about girls. From my talks
to boys in all kinds of schools, I’m convinced this needn’t be the case; but if
the message feeding through from infancy is that adventure, excitement,
climbing trees, fighting monsters, building space rockets and flying to the
moon are for boys only, who can blame them for assuming that a book with girl
characters won’t have any of this kind of stuff?
Both hero and
villain of my first book, Ante’s Inferno,
are girls, with a boy being the other main character. My next title, The Tragickall History of Henry Fowst,
is peopled almost exclusively by boys; while the cast of my current wip, The Fall of a Sparrow, is nearly all
girls. I don’t do this deliberately, it just happens. In all of the books, much
is demanded of the main characters: bravery, quick-thinking, endurance,
survival, a willingness to risk injury – even death – in pursuit of their
cause. I hope this is what will count when arranging school visits, not the sex
of my characters; but I know from bestselling writer Robin Stevens’ experience
that I may have a fight on my hands.
Which is incredibly sad.
Find out more about Griselda Heppel here:
Comments
What I found most depressing was the influence of media and marketing, which feels to me to be getting worse - and reinforcing differences to the detriment of both genders.
I can't help feeling that the girlification of female children (and in some cases adult females) also has something to do with the divergence between the genders in studying different subjects and working in different fields too. I was horrified to find that when my son studied computing and electronics at university there were no girls in his class at all, and even a field that doesn't demand physical strength like computer programming seems to have fewer women in it now than when I worked in it nearly 50 years ago.
You're quite right that this doesn't do anyone any favours, boys or girls.
(sorry, you've set me off now!)
Thank you all for your supportive, thought-provoking comments, drawing on yet more experiences of unnecessary (and damaging) gender demarcation. I agree, there never used to be such a divide in children's clothes: tee shirts, jumpers, jeans, outdoor shoes, wellington boots, duffle coats (that dates me!) were pretty much the same design for boys and girls and easily shared among siblings. Many people think this is a fuss about nothing and does no harm but it does, when stupid slogans on tee shirts tell girls that only boys can study science, maths and IT, while telling boys that only girls are allowed to have emotions. What a way to treat both sexes.
And I'm all for boys running around with a football and girls too (who in my experience needed just as much outlet for blowing off steam after school as their brothers!).