On toddlers and gender

 

      

Christmas box fun 

So, obviously from previous posts this is something I'm passionate about so it's something I'm generally hyper aware of.  I am that annoying person who cringes when strangers make positive comments about the joys of having daughters and who dresses her child like (as said by another stranger) a 'Dad' would ie: in whatever is handy and comfortable regardless of colour or gotogetherableness.*

And while I have strong ideas about gender, I also have strong ideas about Etta developing her own sense of self.  So from as long as she's been able to make decisions for herself, I let her 'choose' her own clothing when shopping.  Within reason, of course - no crazy baby label stuff for instance (easily solved by never venturing past these stores front doors), or giant adult sunglasses she's nabbed off the stand.  What this means is that if she needs new shorts, I find appropriate options and give her colour/pattern choices.  She always has a preference.  Currently she favours imagery she knows (owls, robots etc) and prints in bright colours (predominantly yellow, navy and pink).

At 19 months, Etta still doesn't wear dresses.  This is because Etta is just learning to walk now, and what is most important to us as parents, is not to impair her physical progress unnecessarily (especially with arriving at the walking party a little late).  Dresses (besides the very very short ones) impair her ability to crawl and move, and at this age exploring the world around her is super important.  And at this stage she does not care.  While she is starting to establish her own ideas around gender, she doesn't have notions of 'boys' and 'girls' clothing.  Yet.

What she has established is that women are 'Mummies' and men are 'Daddies'.  This, rather than their function, is their gender.  She will point to women on the street, on TV or in books and say 'Mummy', and does the same with the 'Daddies' she spots.  While this is disconcerting for our friends (many of whom are not yet functional Mummies or Daddies), I am not yet discouraging her from doing this.  Mostly because she's using logic to understand the world around her, and I want her to feel confident to continue doing this.

 And in Etta's reasoning, all children are still 'bubbas'.  While shop mannequins are 'Mummies' and some cartoon characters are 'Daddies', all children are 'bubbas' and do not have a gender.  I'm guessing for Etta gender pertains to adult traits of men and women (voice, boobs, facial hair etc).  I am still trying to work out how she can tell the gender of things - while in cartoons it's easy (bow/colour/eyelashes), with headless mannequins dressed in fashionable old lady pants it's more difficult.  In fact, womens/mens fashion doesn't seem to come into Etta's understanding of 'Mummies' and 'Daddies' - For instance Ellen DeGeneres is still a 'Mummy'.  She rarely gets it wrong (although Sam from Green Eggs and Ham is randomly a 'Mummy' which may well be true as Sam's gender is not defined - yay Dr Seuss!)

Seeing first hand that children have independent thought about gender and gender roles from such an early age helps me feel more confident in my decisions.  I am so glad we have done our best to establish balanced ideas about gender for her from day one.  And we're really not that hardcore about this**.  For us, it just means ensuring her toys aren't overly sexualised (as so many dolls these days are), her clothing is practical and comfortable (ie: not used to objectify her), she has a wide range of (inexpensive) toys to play with, and we reaffirm good qualities in her person other than being beautiful, nice or 'cute'.  And we try not to make assumptions of her abilities or chosen methods of play based on her gender, or at least, not to verbalise these in front of her. 

Because as we knew, external sources (marketing) will do/are doing their very best to convince her of their own agenda around gender (which is done solely for their own benefit, not societies, trust me).  Children of either gender do not need pink tutus or kiddy lipgloss or lessons on how shopping will make you fulfilled (seriously, Shopkins are an actual product).  All they need is the basics - unconditional love, shelter, food, stability (where possible) and fun - all of which can be fulfilled in simple clothing with a ball, bubbles a balloon and a box.  And marketing will ensure that at some point they are likely to 'realise' for themselves that they need more than the basics, so I reckon keeping it simple while it's easy to do so is just sensible.

As I've said in previous posts I know I can't shelter Etta from the outside world, and I really don't try.  What I try to do instead is educate and support her the best way I know how whilst encouraging her own ideas and preferences (currently it's The Moe Show, baths, bubbles, dolly, drawing and cars).  I cherish this time with her where I am not battling peer pressure, marketing and other parents notions of gender to provide equal opportunities for her.  I am grateful I can dress her like a 'Dad' would and she doesn't hate me for it.

*Hence, the 'unrevealing' of the gender of our current child-to-be.

** We haven't taken all 'gendered' books off our shelves, or redrawn characters to be different genders, or banned the colour pink, or stopped using gendered terms, or banned TV, or avoided malls, or yelled at family members for their inappropriately gendered Christmas gifts.

On Choosing Gender Neutral Baby Things

Yeah, yeah, nah.

I have had a range of reactions from people when I've said 'yes, we're having a girl, but please don't buy us pink clothes.'  They range from  'Sweet!' to 'Just dress her up when the grandparents come over', to 'That's never going to work'.  So I thought I'd blog about why I'm making this choice.  This way I can direct any confused friends or relatives here, or print it out for any older relatives who don't use the internet.  I don't expect people to support us in this choice without understanding why we're making it.

I am definitely the driver in this decision, but Murray agrees.  And we aren't just doing this because she's a girl and cos 'feminism' - we decided before we found out the gender of our child (and we only found this out because I am impatient) that this would be part of how we choose to parent.

In having a quick look to check if my memory serves me right, I found this article on the history of pink and blue baby clothes.  Until the mid 19th century babies were dressed pretty much the same, and through the early 20th century the typical colours were actually pink  for boys and blue  for girls.  This didn't morph into the current gender/colour norms until the 1940's.  And there was a revival of non-gendered clothing for babies in the 1970's (cos feminism).  So I do find it a little odd that people would care that I don't want to dress my likely-girl in pink.  This concept ain't nothing new.

The main problem I have with gendered clothing and toys is that it encourages us to use gendered language around little people: 'Isn't she so pretty?' 'Isn't he so big and strong?  Are you going to be a truck driver like daddy?'.  And using language like this around little people tells them what we expect from them.  Language like this alongside saying 'girls (and boys) can do anything' is just confusing.  It's like saying 'You can do anything, but we'd prefer it if you do X'.  I don't want to confuse my kids.  I want them to be able to choose to do whatever without ever feeling worried or guilty about their choice.

Secondly, I don't understand dressing little girls in restrictive clothing when they are just learning to move around.  Dresses simply make moving harder to do - I know, I'm a dress wearer.  Babies and small children are just learning how to get about - which is why they toddle like drunks.  If I were planning on getting drunk and going out, I would not wear impractical clothing (heels, tight dresses).  Because I know from experience the likelihood of falling over and humiliating myself is high.  So why would I dress my small, tottering child this way?  And lace and decoration only aid in making movement awkward or uncomfortable.

Which brings me to a another point: lace and bows aren't necessary.  They are just there to make something 'pretty'.  Do we dress our little boys in lace and bows?  And if not, why not?  I'd say the reason is because we care more about making our little girls 'pretty' than our little boys.  Because we want other qualities than 'pretty' from our little boys.  I expect my little girl than to be more than just 'pretty' also.  Therefore I will try not to dress her in ways that will elicit this response from myself or others (I know this will be hard - I shop, I buy, I look at cute things, I'm human).  I will do my best not to objectify my child.*

Little people are like sponges - they absorb what is going on around them.  I found it fascinating when I learnt that at 21 weeks pregnant your baby can actually taste what Mum is eating through the amniotic fluid.  In utero, we are already influencing our babies future taste in food (need to cut out this lolly habit).  Our choices have a huge impact on the understanding and future choices of our kids.  And because of how I was raised/society etc, it will be difficult for me  not to use language that gender types.  So I am going to give myself as many tools as possible to aid in this.

I am well aware that I live in a world full of other little people and external influences and marketing that will influence my child.  I have no plans to wrap her in cotton wool, prevent her from watching TV or engaging with others so that she turns out like scary Victoria from this cycle of ANTM (yes, I watch junk TV, I'm not some feminist Nazi).  But until she is big enough to make choices for herself, I will try to keep her home environment as neutral as possible (ANTM in secret).  There are plenty of awesome, non gendered toys that most of us played with growing up: blocks, teddy bears, puzzles, books, wagons and trikes, educational games (square shape goes in the square hole) et al.  Toys are about modelling behaviors and learning new skills through play.  If we give her a doll, it'll come with a truck - 'dressing' things is no more important than 'driving' things.

This is particularly important to me as Murray and I fill fairly stereotypically 'gendered' roles at home.  I am the person who usually cooks (not at the moment due to malaise ie: pregnancy), and keeps the house respectable.  Murray is the person who works hard and earns money to support our family.  This is a choice we made independent of gender typing.  Murray earns, and has potential to earn more money than me, so it is logical he does this.  I care more about home maintenance, and a fair chunk of my life revolves around food - so it is logical I look after these things.  There are many other things we do that are less gender 'typical', but this is the face of it.  We will need to discuss and be open about the fact that this is a choice we've made, not what is necessarily 'normal' or 'proper'.  And we can reinforce this notion of 'choice' through gender typing as little as possible.

Although I'm sure most people I know aren't going to be thinking this, I need to mention it anyway: gender and sexuality are completely separate things.  There is no evidence to suggest that raising your children in a non-gendered environment makes them 'gay'.  I am not trying to make our child 'gay'.

And because we recognise 'choice' we also recognise that fairly early on in the piece, this kid is likely going to want gender typical things.  She will probably want to wear pink like 'Dora'.  And that will be fine (Dora is annoying, but not a bad role model for a two year old).  But if she wants to wear overalls and play in the sandpit, that will be fine too.  Like all parents-to-be, we want to do our best for our child-to-be.  And for me, modelling equality is as much a part of that as trying to cut down on the sugar so this kid isn't a sugar junkie like me.

For more info on gender neutral parenting, have a look here (I found this interesting)

* I know that most parents aren't intentionally objectifying their children, and I'm not trying to be judgy, just being blunt.