392-Rearing

In his/her article “”Is Raising Your Child to be Gender Neutral Possible?” Associated Content contributor WS writes a brief analysis on two texts examining the possibility of raising gender-neutral children. The first is “An Unconventional Family,” in which Sandra Lipstiz Bem highlights two steps needed to successfully raise a gender-neutral child:

1) The first step is to inform the child about biological differences in gender without teaching them stereotypes associated with them

2) The second step is to teach the child to be skeptical of any cultural messages or stereotypes they are exposed to in the media or in everyday life
The idea is to “provide the child with a critical lens that would predispose them to ‘read’ the culture’s conventional messages in an unconventional way” (WS). I like this method because rather than shielding the child from media—limiting what they can watch and read, whom they can talk to—you provide them with the tools they need to view the world with their own critical eye.

In the second article examined, “Family Structures and Gender Personality: Chodorow, Familism, and Pyschoanalytic Sociology Revisited” Denise Segura and Jennifer Pierce assert that rearing children to be gender-neutral is nearly impossible. Some cultures promote community child-rearing and place emphasis on communitarian rather than individualistic goals. In this case, it seems that employing a “critical lens” while examining cultural messages would be, well, detrimental to the culture. A society such as this requires a certain amount of solidarity and conformity among its members to function appropriately, which leaves little room for the individuality that Bem feels is so important.

The author of this article poses some interesting questions at the end in response to what Bem, Segura, and Price have said. Author WS asserts that we should worry not about raising gender-neutral children, but rather try to raise children with gender-appreciate values. He/she writes “we know that there are distinct differences between men and women; there are some things that women are better at than men and vice versa” (WS). But this claim comes from someone who has (likely) been socialized in a gender-biased society, like most of us are. Are there really distinct differences in the capabilities of men and women? I don’t think so. I think that these “differences” can be overcome by a little psychological overhaul.

There are certainly biological and hormonal differences that make women good with fine motor skills and men good with heavy lifting, but that does not mean that these differences cannot be overcome. It’s an age-old argument, but a good one I believe—we all have certain natural advantages regardless of gender that put us on an uneven playing field, not to mention circumstances that we share with many other people, both men and women. This is not to say that men are incapable of dancing ballet and women of carpentry; just that traditionally we have lent ourselves to these roles. Once we detach ourselves from these traditional obligations, there should be no reason that we cannot do anything.

If we were to raise our children to “appreciate gender differences,” we would, I believe, would be emphasizing the differences and giving people an excuse to blame gender for their shortcomings. I think the better practice is Bem’s, at least for our society, in which children are taught to be skeptical of cultural messages. Using this method we create a society of individuals taught to question and think for themselves, rather than a society that just accepts the stereotypes.


Associated Content-Article

Neon Single

Got Neon Indian's new single on the brain. Alan Polomo, 21, originally created Neon Indian as an alter-ego type catch-all for everything that didn't fit his original music persona VEGA. Check, check, check, check it out.

SLEEP PARALYSIST

Inner Animals, yo

Dis is mah friend's band. CD release coming at you from Skully's March 26th, yo.

What does this mean?

Does this video even have a plot? Probably not. Leave it up to yeasayer to set their video in a futuristic casino and spontaneously develop the skillz to play kryptonite as a musical instrument.

O.N.E. video

Alice

Just caught Alice in Wonderland this past weekend. Johnny Depp had a spectacular performance, Alice was somewhat of a disappointment. However, this video containing spliced clips of the original film, leaves nothing to be desired.

392-American on the Verge of Collapse?

The first chapter of Outliers uses an example from American society to introduce the idea of thinking in terms of community. Roseto, a small Italian community in Pennsylvania, has puzzled physicians for decades—Rosetans seems to live significantly longer, healthier lives than neighboring communities. Many speculated that Rosetans follow a healthier diet due to their Italian roots, or have genetics that are naturally more resistant to disease. After close research, however, physicians found little deviation in their habits and genetic makeup than those in surrounding communities. Physician Stewart Wolf suggested that perhaps it is neither nature nor choice that could account for their health, but rather the atmosphere and community that they exist in. The structure in Roseto is egalitarian, grounded in social ties and family. Wolf asserts that perhaps it is not free will that affects our health, but rather our place in the larger society.

Last summer I was required to read Jared Diamond’s book Collapse, which studied the causes of societal collapse throughout human history in a variety of specific examples. Diamond adopts a socio-enviro-anthropological perspective to explain why, exactly, societies so quickly fall apart. And after reading the first chapter of Outliers, I was reminded so much of Diamond’s five point framework. Ironically, after reading about how Roseto manages to produce such healthy individuals and function so effectively, I questioned how it is that certain societies function so ineffectively at times. We must sometimes look to the “bugs” in a system to figure out how it functions normally

Diamond’s five-point framework of collapse outlines five primary factors that exist when a society is on the verge of tragedy. They include 1) environmental degradation due to abuse of resources, 2) climate change, 3) relationships with friendly neighboring societies, 4) negative relationships with hostile societies leading to conflict, and 5) political, economic, social, cultural features within the society that essentially contribute to all the above factors. Diamond places great influences on the fifth factor. Though he concedes that certain societies, for environmental reasons, are more fragile than others, cultural factors and values often dictate how problems will be solved within the society.

I am totally under-qualified to claim that American Society is on the verge of collapse, and I would certainly oversimplify the matter if I tried. However I do think that America fits eerily into Diamond’s framework. He asserts that major reasons as to why the Greenland Norse collapsed were their strong commitment to religion, and unwillingness to learn from their neighbors and adapt to changing conditions. Although the Norse were a far more religious folk than we are, Americans tend to hold fast to other values such as individual success. This value jeopardizes the solidarity within our society and compromises our relationships with other nations. The Norse were unwilling to adjust to the cold winter conditions, and did not learn the techniques of kayaking and seal-hunting (perhaps out of spite) that the Inuits practiced. Like the Norse, Americans usually set trends rather than follow them. Although we can see that socialized medicine is successful in Europe, we resist it because individual success is of the utmost importance. For the Norse, their pride was a detriment.

Another factor that contributed to the Norse collapse was social cohesion. The Norse were extremely close-knit, but so are the Rosetans. What’s the difference? The Norse collapse can be attributed to the fact that they were cohesive, but not self-sufficient. They relied heavily on Europeans in Norway for resources instead of developing other methods of acquiring them. The Rosetans, on the other hand, relied on neighbors, relatives, and close friends for their resources. Like the Norse, we are not independent of other nations. As a post-industrialized nation, we rely on other countries for gasoline, meat, etc. To succeed, we either need to become independent, cohesive unit, or coexist with other nations completely. Right now we are somewhat in limbo.

Now that we have identified a framework for determining how previously successful societies fail, we should be able to prevent our downfall. Wrong. Diamond suggests that even if societies perceive the problems, there is no guarantee that they’ll attempt to solve them, or if they do, choose a route that effectively solves the problem. In American society, I feel that we have perceived the problem, but there is still a good amount of resistance to solving it. Because we are a democratic society, policies take a long time to become established, and diffuse through society…Sometimes, I fear, too long to solve the problem before it spins out of control. At this point, I think we need to work on our flexibility and tolerance to new ideas. We need to be open to new innovations in energy, agriculture, transportation and continue to be plastic in a world where values are in constant flux. We need to, most importantly, put our pride aside and realize that our society is an interdependent unit of the larger world, or else we may experience a fate not unlike the Norse.