Raising Children as Gender Neutral
Is gender schematic thinking inevitable? Some argue that it is not. They believe that we can raise “gender-aschematic children” by limiting the development of gender schemata and substituting alternative schemata. But it is important to remember that gender may not be the only important category of identity development. For example, ethnic group membership, or other cultural influences might be more salient than gender. Thus, making these actors also important in determining the possibility of gender transcendence. In this paper we will look at two different articles that deal with the subject. First we will look at An Unconventional Family written by psychologist Sandra Lipstiz Bem who talks about her own child-rearing practices and maintaint that it is possible to raise “gender-neutral” children by ensuring that they develop gender-aschematic thinking. Then we will take a look at Denise A. Segura and Jennifer L. Pierce’s Chicana/o Family Structures and Gender Personality: Chodorow, Familism, and Pyschoanalytic Sociology Revisited, which uses sociologist Nancy Chodorow’s psychoanalytic theory to understand the acquisition of heterosexual gender identity in Chicana/o families, arguing that raising “gender-neutral” children may not always be possible.
Bem starts her article discussing her doubts about the plausibility of raising “gender-aschematic” children. She states that it is difficult not because of any cognitive limitation on the part of the child, but rather it is because the child is situated in a culture that distinguishes ubiquitously on the basis of sex form the moment of birth. She holds that it “ought to be possible for even young children to be gender liberated if we can inoculate them early enough and effectively enough against the culture.” She then goes on to describe what she considers as two stages in the inoculation of children.
The first such phase the main goal is to teach the child about both male-female differences and the body without simultaneously learning any cultural stereotypes about males and females or any cultural stigmas about the body. Essentially retaining gender education but advancing sex-education. The second phase focuses mainly on making the child skeptical of whatever conventional cultural message about sex and gender they might be exposed to, wheter it be from television, from books, form movies, from other people, or from anywhere else. Basically the idea is to provide the child with a kind of critical feminist lens or framework that would predispose them to “read” the culture’s conventional message in an unconventional way. Bem says that if you follow these phases and truly are dedicated to raising a “gender-aschematic” child then, although it may be difficult it is defiantly within the realm of possibility.
Segura and Pierce however, argue that while this may be great and fine for some people like Bem, it is not always possible. They discuss the family and cultural structure of the chicana/os and how this structure doesn’t allow for the rising of “gender-neutral” children. They take this view because the Chicano cultural pattern is collective. Meaning that in such a culture, group goals come before individualistic goals, placing the emphasis on group loyalty, interdependence, and group decision-making. This, they maintain, makes it impossible for an individual family to raise “gender-neutral” children. The cultural influences and group identity will not allow it. They would not be able to survive in their cultural surroundings if such an event occurred. Chicano mothers encourage their children to think and act communally-for the good of the family and the community instead of individualistically. In fact the mothering of a child is usually spread out through many members of the family and community, the community rather than just a single pair of parents, essentially brings up the child. This cultural practice makes the rearing of a “gender-neutral” child near impossible, says Segura and Pierce.
I find myself after reading both articles asking myself the question: why? Why are people so concerned about raising “gender-neutral” children? I think that instead of focusing on raising “gender-neutral” children we should focus on raising “gender-appreciative” children. 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. I don’t think there is a problem in recognizing those differences. The problem occurs when we think that one sex is more important or more competent than the other. When we lose respect for the other sex by not realizing how important their contribution to the culture and society and family really is. Therein lays the real problem. Not recognizing the difference that do exist and then respecting those differences. It should be more like a team effort. Just like on a soccer team there are players that kick better than others, and there are players that defend better, and there are players that think better, and some that run better or faster, etc, etc. However, without any one of the players you would cease to have a team and winning would be impossible. I think it is the same with gender and people in general. We shouldn’t be trying to make everyone the same, but rather teaching everyone the importance of difference and teaching them how to recognize the value of those differences and to respect and honor a person regardless of what their gender is.
