Blue is for boys and pink is for girls, we're told. But do these gender norms reflect some inherent biological difference between the sexes, or are they culturally constructed? It depends on whom you ask.
Decades of research by University of Maryland historian Jo Paoletti suggests that up until the 1950s, chaos reigned when it came to the colors of baby paraphernalia. "There was no gender-color symbolism that held true everywhere," Paoletti told Life's Little Mysteries. Because the pink-for-a-girl, blue-for-a-boy social norms only set in during the 20th century in the United States, they cannot possibly stem from any evolved differences between boys' and girls' favorite colors, Paoletti has argued.
Baby books, new baby announcements and cards, gift lists and newspaper articles from the early 1900s indicate that pink was just as likely to be associated with boy babies as with girl babies. For example, the June 1918 issue of the Infant's Department, a trade magazine for baby clothes manufacturers, said: "There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy; while blue, which is more delicate and dainty is prettier for the girl."
The Myth of Pink and Blue Brains. Lise Eliot opens this useful summary article on gender, neuroscience and education:
http://web.uvic.ca/~gtreloar/Articles/Educational%20Philosophy/The%20Myth%20of%20Pink%20and%20Blue%20Brains.pdf
"If educators hope to close gender gaps, they must abandon the notion of a male and female brain."
Eliot first demonstrates an important point about how human variation works:
"Our actual ability differences are quite small. Although psychologists can measure statistically significant distinctions between large groups of men and women or boys and girls, there is much more overlap in the academic and even social-emotional abilities of the genders than there are differences (Hyde, 2005). To put it another way, the range of performance within each gender is wider than the difference between the average boy and girl."
She then considers the implications for education, summarizing points about early developmental differences in boys and girls and what education aims to achieve by writing:
"So if we want to tackle academic gaps between boys and girls, we need to start early, nurturing skills and attitudes that will better prepare both genders for the modern classroom. We also need to make sure that the classroom remains a place where students' potential is broadened, rather than narrowed through misguided beliefs."
The whole piece is definitely worth a read.
http://web.uvic.ca/~gtreloar/Articles/Educational%20Philosophy/The%20Myth%20of%20Pink%20and%20Blue%20Brains.pdf
"If educators hope to close gender gaps, they must abandon the notion of a male and female brain."
Eliot first demonstrates an important point about how human variation works:
"Our actual ability differences are quite small. Although psychologists can measure statistically significant distinctions between large groups of men and women or boys and girls, there is much more overlap in the academic and even social-emotional abilities of the genders than there are differences (Hyde, 2005). To put it another way, the range of performance within each gender is wider than the difference between the average boy and girl."
She then considers the implications for education, summarizing points about early developmental differences in boys and girls and what education aims to achieve by writing:
"So if we want to tackle academic gaps between boys and girls, we need to start early, nurturing skills and attitudes that will better prepare both genders for the modern classroom. We also need to make sure that the classroom remains a place where students' potential is broadened, rather than narrowed through misguided beliefs."
The whole piece is definitely worth a read.
No comments:
Post a Comment