In my house, long ago, we catered to the youngest child because SHE was the one most likely to cause a scene. The lone boy child was almost never considered first. Gender had nothing to do with it, it was a matter of who I could finesse more easily into giving in, who could I wrangle the quickest and the quietest.... and it was always the boy.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Hi Denise,

Since she's gotten a little older Cara is now giving her brother a run for his money in the "most likely to cause a scene department." And they've both become more adept at trying to one up each other.

But they're the most wonderful, amazing kids and I never fail to learn from them.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

I think even the most strident feminist does this from time to time. We're so surrounded by the male perspective that we forget there's another one out there.

When I was taking Education classes, doing my Student Teaching and later substitute teaching, I occasionally had teachers suggest that when I was choosing books for the whole class to read, I should pick stories where the main character was male because, "boys don't like to read books about girls." It's sad, because they would do this whether or not it was true and also by choosing "boy books" they reinforced the idea that it's okay to disregard the girl's preferences.

The media do it all the time -- we get so used to it. I was watching David Letterman last night for just a minute -- I had flipped over channels and so hadn't seen the whole segment but starting watching just in time for him to reveal a big Sports Illustrated cover with a woman wearing a barely there bikini. This type of thing is done all the time, despite the fact that it only appeals to half the audience. With the other half, perhaps some don't mind and some would probably feel uncomfortable. But we're so used to the male perspective, how the women might feel about it was probably not even considered.

Thanks for your interesting post.

than her older brother..he us much more understanding (mostly) than she is....she is girly in her RAGES and snits and feet stamping and so on.

wow...not passive at all

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com

Totally agree the ‘path of least resistance’ is an almost instinctive human response, and not always a gender-based one. Clearly seems to be a 'personality' thing...especially having just come from chaperoning a middle school Valentine’s dance and witnessing firsthand the 'social engineering' that goes on in prepubescent environs! Heehe ;-)

First of all, thanks for including Shaping Youth.org as a resource, sorry it's taking me so long to reply, but ironically, I'm working on a post about 'gender neutral' activities that can bring out the best in kids, (sans 'pink think' Packaging Girlhood/Boyhood, etc.)

As a writer/producer, I can verify that media/marketing take shortcuts via stereotypes (lazy/fast ways to convey characters vs. nuanced development) w/very little regard for the reverb that transpires. (If I see one more 'snippy blonde popular mean girl' or 'coke-bottle glasses-brainiac social outcast' I'm gonna urp!)

It can really foul up the works by instilling limitations and boxing kids into expectations of pre-defined behaviors early on...bleh.

Geena Davis' research explores this a lot here re: improving gender portrayals in children's media: http://www.thegeenadavisinstitute.org And this cartoon/kids animation blog dialogue gives an interesting snapshot from inside the industry: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/response-from-geena-davis...

It was so refreshing to have smart characters, i.e. Gilmore Girls (sniff! why do all the good scripts get yanked?---I loved that show so much we even did a GG 'getaway' for winter break I blogged about here: http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=934)...

As for the Letterman/SI swimsuit show you mention, that’s a classic case of 'desensitization' vs. 'squirm factor' that we bump up against daily in our research with kids.

We see this in schools all the time w/24-7 media now…a guy's cellphone screensaver set to an SI swimsuit model/playboy type or loaded song lyrics/video games that send out clear cues re: girls' value societal worth.

It’s a constant reminder of surround sound objectification; people are either ‘not bugged at all/unaware’ or ‘visibly uncomfortable’…the polarity is extreme.

It's one of the things we were carping about in the (now infamous) Target brouhaha, the proliferation of "Hooter girl in training" toddler tees, 'playground pimp' infantwear, causing people to simply shut down/neutralize this stuff because it becomes like ‘urban wallpaper’ totally 'normalized.' Bleh.

We’re striving for more positive gender portrayal steering away from appearance-based cues toward more collaborative pursuits…For example, I serve on the advisory board for Galileo Ed (Tech Museum, Klutz Toys, Art in Action alliance)---with a focus on “art, science and the great outdoors."

Each year we look into topics which won't skew one way or the other, but instead, expose BOTH genders to areas of interest often 'typecast' as being a strength in ‘boys or girls’…Blending tactile art experiences (like creating a sculpture garden, or psychedelic 60s) with fun science (amusement park physics or crime solver mystery labs) and lots of outdoor relays, music, mixed team play.

It’s refreshing for kids to be able to open up to ALL interests with a clean slate and balanced offerings instead of ‘boy choices/girl choices’…they loosen up and get to be themselves instead of being pigeon-holed, since lately media/marketing is defining kids before they can even define themselves.

Cara and Milos are sure lucky to have such a caring, alert soul in their lives…so cool. Now if only we could have some of the PARENTS tune into kids with that same level of awareness, whew…that’s been a toughie for us here at Shaping Youth.

Sorry for being a blog hog...just finally getting to chime in (albeit belatedly!) Keep up the great work!

Amy Jussel
Shaping Youth

Hi Amy,

Thanks so much for your insightful comments. I think people need to understand that the media isn't going anywhere and for the most part, they aren't going to change their marketing practices, they're just going to sharpen them even further. Therefore it's up to us to become informed media consumers, and to teach our kids to be the same.

If you're black, or Latino or a girl or gay, that doesn't mean that you're destined to be a supporting player in a white person's life. Unfortunately, that's the portrayal of life in television and the movies and we have to make sure to let especially minority kids know that they are the stars of their lives. Not supporting players. No matter what they see on television or in the movies.

Movies like ”Real Women Have Curves,” ”The Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants,” and ”Akeelah And The Bee” are good examples of movies that feature kids who are not the classic stereotypes of who they are supposed to be based on their ethnicity or family circumstances.

We're all going to have to work harder to make sure kids know they can be whoever they want to be based on their own minds, and not on someone else's pre-programmed notion.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube

Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Years ago, I read in a movie trade paper that movies geared toward
older teens and young adults were aways written with males in mind
because the assumption was that movie going decisions, either on a date
or as part of a group, were almost always made by the boy.

That is both stupid and true. Meaning, it's true that movie distributors think that way, but it's stupid because that's not how people decide to see movies. The person deciding which movie to see is the Queen Bee of the group, regardless of gender. Whoever has the power decides the movie.

If you're black, or Latino or a girl or gay, that doesn't mean that
you're destined to be a supporting player in a white person's life.
Unfortunately, that's the portrayal of life in television and the
movies and we have to make sure to let especially minority kids know
that they are the stars of their lives. Not supporting players. No
matter what they see on television or in the movies.

Hee hee! That's so true. It sucks when actors who are black, Latino, gay or whatever isn't white/hetero/male/able subscribe to the idea that they must play a sidekick role. No. That's not okay. That's one of the reasons I created my book and my blog. I'm not someone's token friend. Well, actually I'm a few people's token black friend. But anyhoo, the point is, I'm the star of my own series, not a sidekick.