But the books also serve as a reminder that we still haven't figured out what gender equality means or how to prepare kids to live it in the world they will assume. "Dangerous" limits boys to tasks, ideas and ways of being associated with boyhood, neglecting knowledge about girlhood that would serve them well as men working and raising children alongside women. "Daring," on the other hand, urges girls to learn both female and male skills and lore -- a good thing for advancement into what is still a man's world, but dangerously close to an endorsement of the Superwoman idea.
Although I am of course a huge proponent of children reading for pleasure, especially in these times when it seems many of them don't see reading as a leisure activity anymore, but a chore, I do think children's books should offer readers something valuable they can take with them. Such as choices for their identities and their futures that aren't already so narrowly confined. It's true that "Daring" has choices for girls that include things more "traditionally" male, but "Dangerous" doesn't do the same for the boys. I think this mirrors our society's advances (and lack thereof). Feminists and women who refuse to title themselves thus have insisted for decades now that their daughters can be anything they want to be, from a teacher to a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or scientist. But who tells boys they, too can be preschool teachers, or nurses? In fact, when a male does enter nursing as a career, he is generally referred to always thereafter as a "male nurse," as though he were somehow different than a female one in some important way.
Similarly, many people insist that their daughters not wear pink as babies or have their nurseries decorated in pink, so as not to confine them to this ultra-feminine identity before they are old enough to even know who they are. But these same people still refuse to dress their boys in pink, leaving pink still to be only appropriate for "the fairer sex." And although girls have much more broad clothing choices now, boys are still confined to pants and shorts. Why did it become that someone decided at some point that girls should branch out into more male clothing styles while leaving boys boxed in to what they already had?
I submit that leaving gender inequality and strictly defined gender identities behind will open up doors for everyone. Who will not benefit from having double the choices available to them, in play, in work, in clothes, interests, hobbies, friends, career options? Boys and girls alike should have all these options available to choose from. Why not let a boy wear a skirt? A girl play football or enjoy NASCAR? Let's not be afraid to let our children do non-gender-traditional activities!
It is my fervent hope that one day we will reach a point where boys grow up to be men who respect women as equals and who are not afraid to be compared to them. Maybe in this world there will be family leave for dads and equal pay across the sexes, making it possible for grown-up men and women to also have double the choices available to them. But why not start as kids?
2 comments:
I think it's really interesting when you point out that feminine identity is transcending the traditional role of submission to men, but that male identity doesn't seem to be going through the same, though opposite, transition. That is, men aren't embracing what have traditionally been feminine roles. But, perhaps this is due to the feminine having been defined centrally in terms of submission to men. I mean, who wants to be dominated?
But perhaps something else is going on, that would benefit everybody: the traditionally feminine role of caregiver can be redefined without the idea that the caregiver is essentially submissive. So, take nursing for example. Rather than being a role of "mere" care-giving, with all of the skilled work being done by the doctors (which has never really been true), the role of nurse is, I think, moving towards being seen as a skilled position in its own right, with a central component being care-giving.
Take parenting as another example. Rather than splitting parenting into two gendered roles, one, importantly, the submissive role of maintenance (feeding, cleaning up poop, etc.), parenting is coming to be seen as a skilled role in its own right. One of the elements of this role is the maintenance stuff, but parenting also includes education, developing the child's moral nature, discipline, and so on. This kind of role requires a skillful actor and can be an empowering activity.
So, I think what is perhaps happening, and at least what needs to happen, is not for men to become more feminine, in the outmoded sense of being more submissive, but rather for us to purge our culture as a whole of the idea that care is an essentially submissive and powerless activity. It can be appropriate, rewarding, and empowering for both men and women. The roles traditionally reserved for women, seen in this light, are no longer appropriately seen as gendered roles at all. Women can be doctors and engineers, and men can be preschool teachers and nurses.
A day later and I was ready togo. The boys requests waned, butthey never stopped completely.
photo shoot rape stories
fuck me mommy stories
teen sex pics and stories
nifty erotic stories puberty
free taboo stories videos
A day later and I was ready togo. The boys requests waned, butthey never stopped completely.
Post a Comment