Chapter 4 -- Later Childhood

Small Group Discussion:

Q1: What are our American values?Q2: When do we start teaching children these?Q3: How are we teaching our children these values?

*** Provide examples.

--> games -- monopoly, LIFE, team sports--> toys -- baking oven, changing table, tool box, work bench--> children=s books--> school--> parents--> media

-- Disney movies, commercials, magazine ads, cartoons, etc.

Large group discussion:

--> Are these values that we are teaching our children in accordance with the ideals and needs of our society?

-- How?-- Why?

--> Other cultures -- Russia, former Soviet Union, has emphasized discipline, loyalty and cooperation. Their goal is collective achievement.

-- makes sense for a socialist society-- different values than our capitalist society

SCHOOL

Let=s talk about socialization during the later childhood years in terms of school as a socializing agent.

--> going to school is a big transition in roles for kids-- they go from being an object of special care, unconditional love, lots of attention

Toone of many children that must fit into a tight schedule -- sometimes entertaining classes sometimes difficult classes, etc.

--> social class

-- children from middle-class families tend to receive a fuller and more positive orientation toward school than working-class children

--> race-- there are differences among ethnic groups in the value parents place on education and in their efforts to motivate their children to do well in school

-- for instance, in African-American families, girls especially are encouraged to excel in school.

--> studies show that the sociocultural level of the home and the parens= valuing of education account for a very large part of school performance.

transitionC one of the things that socialization theorists suggest is taught or reinforced at school are gender roles.

C Thorne=s work investigates gender role socialization in the school setting.

C let=s turn to her work.

Gender Differences at School --- Gender Play -- Thorne=s book

Thorne

I. Research Question:

--> How do children actively come together to help create and sometimes challenge, gender structures and meanings?

**** Thorne doesn't subscribe to the frameworks of "gender socialization" and "gender development"

--> these two frameworks organize most of the literature on the social construction of gender in children's lives

--> these frameworks come out of an alternative perspective which was launched during the 1970s women's movement.

--> both suggest that if boys and girls are different, it is not because they are born that way but made that way--> notions of femininity and masculinity, the gender divisions one sees on school playgrounds, structures of male dominance, the idea of gender itself -- all are

social constructions.

-- children, according to one strand of this perspective, are socialized into existing gender arrangements

**** Thorne is dissatisfied with these perspectives for several reasons:

1. concept of socialization moves mostly in one direction--> we must recognize that children participate in their own socialization

2. both the "socialization" and "development" frameworks presume to know the outcome of current social practices

-- assume that the forces that operate on children will produce adults who are conventionally masculine and feminine, or else "deviant" if the process slips or fails

3. these two frameworks emphasize the constitution and unfolding of individuals as boys or girls. Which means that they neglect group life -- social relations, the organization and meanings of social situations, the collective practices through which children and adults create and recreate gender in their daily interactions.

-- Thorne shifts the focus from individuals to social relations.

II. How does Thorne investigate this RQ?

A. ethnographic work

--> observed two elementary schools-- 1976-1977 -- observed 8 months in a public elementary school in a small city on the coast of California (refers to school as Oceanside)

-- combined 4th - 5th grade class-- observed class, lunchroom, playground

-- 1980 -- observed for 3 months in Ashton School (school on outskirts of large city)

-- observed in kindergarten and 2nd grade classroom-- also roamed lunchroom, hallways, playground

--> demographics of both schools similar-- predominantly working class, about 75% white, btw 12-14% Chicano or Latino; around 5% African American

--> Retrospective data-- also used some retrospective data from her Sociology students in college-- 1983 interviewed 15 women and 10 men on Michigan=s campus

-- asked them about their recollections of 4th, 5th, and 6th grades

B. What were some of the difficulties in collecting data for Thorne?1. She was often seen as an authority figure and children would want to interact with her based on this role which made it difficult to Abreak into@ children=s culture.

2. Winning trust of students made her sometimes feel like she was betraying the trust of the teacher

3. Her own memories of childhood creeping into her work biasing her observations

4. Her notes often being overloaded with the interactions of the more popular students which means a lack of information about all students in general

5. High levels of energy and chaos taking place on the playground made it difficult to record what Thorne was observing. As time went by, she saw a lot more order in the chaos but getting to that point was difficult.

III. FindingsA. Boys and girls together, but mostly apart

1. Why separated?a. teachers sometimes separate kids out by gender

1.) Lines-- two separate lines -- girls= line, boys= line-- to go to the bathroom, outside, lunchroom, etc.

2.) Divide the classroom into the boys side and girls side3.) Language - big boy, good girls

b. Kids separate themselves out1.) Lines

-- if in a section of the line where you are the only girl or boy, kids move to another area in the line that is the right Agender territory@

2.) Lunch table-- groups who maneuver to eat together are usually friends and mostly of the same gender

-- tables can be mixed with boys and girls but they are

divided into smaller same-gender groupings

-- completely separate boys and girls tables at lunch were more frequent among the 5th and 6th graders than the younger kids

3.) Playground-- there is extensive separation by gender

-- activities, spaces, and equipment are heavily gender-typed

-- playgrounds in general have a more fixed geography of gender

-- girls stay close to the school building; while boys are occupying the majority of the playground space

-- kids sometimes use gender to exclude kids from playing with them

--> one little boy wanted to jump rope so he offered to twirl the rope and the girls replied, Ayou gotta be a girl@

4.) Friendships-- same gender friendships

-- example Thorne provides -- girl and boy who were best friends in their neighborhood but wouldn=t even talk to one another at school because they didn=t want to be teased.

--> This separation is NOT so in neighborhoods. Why? p. 51Why is gender separation more extensive in schools than in many neighborhoods?

--> Schools differ from neighborhoods in 3 main ways which all effect gender separation/integration.

1. Age grading -- research is finding that children of the same or similar ages often separate by gender; whereas mixed age groups, such as those you would find in neighborhoods are less likely to separate by gender

-- children of the same age might share similar interests

and may search for even more homogeneity, thus separating by gender

And/Or

-- girls and boys who are closer in age are more likely to be seen as potential romantic partners, and hence as vulnerable to the heterosexual teasing that pushes genders apart

2. Their Crowded and Public nature --

a) schools are more densely populated than neighborhoods, providing more potential companions of the same gender and age

-- neighborhoods contain fewer potential companions; without as much choice, kids are more likely to interact with someone of another age or a different gender

b) schools provide potential witnesses too.-- much more public environment than neighborhoods

Teasing-- kids are constantly under surveillance by teachers, aides, and other students -- which means they are subject to criticism and teasing (these have a powerful impact on kids)

-- ex. -- chants like ABobby=s a girl!@ when this boy was sitting among a group of girls in the cafeteria

-- or kids teasing a boy and girl who choose to work on a project together -- tease this team of two for Aliking@ one another, or Agoin= with@ one another, or Ahaving a crush on@ one another

-- these are often hurled as insults

Choosing-- if the game involves picking teams, boys and girls often stay apart

-- when the game involves just Asqueezing in@ or getting in line and joining the game, girls and boys are much more likely to play together

3. Presence of Power and Evaluation --

-- adults in schools have a lot of power

-- children are the subordinates

-- Thorne observed, in the classroom (which is where adults have control), adults more often mixed than separated girls and boys

-- adults exert much more control over classrooms than over playgrounds, a major reason why girls and boys mix more in the former than in the latter setting

-- Thorne also observed that the sheer presence of an adult (who might intervene, and who might also be seen as drawing a group together) legitimates the possibility of entering a turf controlled by the other gender; the adult becomes the focus of the groups, which lessens the risk of teasing

-- the presence of adults alters the dynamics of power. Girls and boys who share the subordinated position of being children, sometimes draw together to resist or maneuver around adult authority

2. Theories as to why kids are so intent on separating by gendera. Shared interests or Abehavioral compatibility@

--> it has often been assumed that through a combination of biological factors and cultural learning, girls and boys develop different types of temperament, styles of play, and/or sets of interests.

--> Because of such sex/gender differences, it has been argued, boys find it more rewarding to interact and play with boys, and girls to interact and play with girls.

--> there is NOT much support for this theory

-- children with similar activities levels are not seeking one

another out to play together//// kids are dividing groups by gender instead of activity level (Maccoby and Jacklin)

-- Maccoby and Jacklin are suggesting that perhaps there are other explanations for such behavior -- control

-- girls have difficulty influencing boys but can influence other girls

-- boys can influence both boys and girls

-- girls, at least initially, may separate from boys in order to avoid being dominated. (this explanation still does not really explain why boys separate from girls)

b. Psychoanalytic processes

--> Nancy Chodorow -- argues that boys are motivated to separate from and to devalue Athings feminine@ in order to gain separation from their mothers

-- because mothers do the bulk of primary parenting, both boys and girls initially identify with and are strongly attached to a woman

-- girls have special difficulty separating from their mothers, partly because they are of the same gender

-- in contrast, boys develop a separate sense of self founded on acute awareness of being a different gender than the mother; this motivates boys to deny female attachment and to devalue girls and women

-- by bonding with other boys and derogating girls, boys mark separation and seek to consolidate their somewhat shaky gender identities. ( in a sense, shoring up a sense of masculinity by distancing themselves from things feminine, including girls)

c. The cognitive dynamics of gender labeling and identity

--> the cognitive awareness of being a girl or a boy is clearly a prerequisite for creating separate girls= and boys= groups.

--> a number of scholars have argued that the sheer knowledge that

tone is a girl or a boy, an awareness that consolidates around age two, and the child=s growing ability to use and apply gender categories in relation to others may set processes of gender separation into motion.

--> differences of age and of gender are concrete and visible and socially marked from a young age

--> each child comes to realize the they share a category with others either labeled Agirl@ or Aboy@

--> that awareness may lead girls to want to be with girls, and boys with boys. Being with those of Aone=s own kind@ and avoiding those of Athe other kind@ confirms Agirlness@ or Aboyness@ and fills a need for self-discovery

--> when boys are with boys and girls with girls, they have found a powerful way of Adoing gender@, of announcing and sustaining separate gender identities.

--> but this theory doesn=t explain those children that want to be with the other gender group (also, groups are often split on gender lines not racial lines and that is a group that is not the same)

d. HOW may be a better question than WHY

--> Thorne is not satisfied with any of these explanations and decides to focus on how kids separate by gender instead of why they do.

3. HOW do boys and girls stay separated? (Ch. 5)

a. Contests-- opposite sides -- sometimes in the classroom (math problems on the board and see who could write the correct answer first; the Gossipy Girls team or the Beastly Boys team)

-- kickball or handball on the playground

b. Chasing-- called: Athe chase@; Achasers@; chase-and-kiss@; Acatch-and-kiss@; Akissers and chasers@

-- these names may vary but they always contain both gender and sexual meanings

-- often a response to being provoked -- interruption of a girls game or a boys game (usually interruption of girls= games)

-- chaser and chasee eventually switch roles

-- groups of girls chasing groups of boys or vice versa (sometimes with a home-base of safe place)

-- sometimes boys betray one another and hold a boy down (after some chase between the two boys) and call, Ahey girls, get >im@

-- boys more often mix episodes of cross-gender with same-gender chasing

c. ACooties@ and other pollution rituals--> usually specific individuals or groups are treated as contaminating or carrying germs

--> cooties are invisible but you know when someone has them because someone makes the announcement AFranco has cooties@

--> while boys and girls can give one another cooties, and girls may give cooties to another girl, boys do not generally give cooties to other boys.

-- girls are central to the game

--> either girls or boys may be defined as having cooties, but girls give cooties to boys more often than vice versa.

--> sometimes cooties is known as Agirl stain@

--> Cootie Queens or Cootie Girls are female pariahs, the ultimate school untouchables, seen as contaminating not only by virtue of gender, but also through some added stigma such as being overweight or poor (sometimes race is also seen as a contamination and will surface in pollution games)--> girls as a group are often treated as an ultimate source of contamination while boys are exempt

-- boys sometimes mark hierarchies among themselves by using Agirl@ as a label for low-status boys and by pushing subordinated boys next to the contaminating space of girls

--> such games, although done in a teasing kind of way, often

afflict pain on children -- produces inequality

d. Invasions

--> boys invade girls= groups and activities much more often than the reverse

--> Ateasing the girls@ is a named activity that boys list when asked what they do on the playground

B. Do girls and boys have different worlds or cultures?1. YES (some argue)

a. Boys World--> boys= groups -- large, public, hierarchical, competitive

--> play outdoors and take up lots of space/territory

--> engage in more rough-and-tumble play and physical fighting than do girls

--> boys= talk and actions often revolve around themes of physical strength and force

-- more often threaten other boys than girls -- i.e. AShut up Kevin or I=ll bust your head@

--> often asserted that boys= social relations tend to be overtly hierarchical and competitive

-- they repeatedly negotiate and mark rank through insults, direct commands, challenges, and threats

--> not only do boys compete in sports; they also turn other activities into contests

--> more technical talk among boys than girls groups (i.e. microscopes, lenses, etc)--> complex structure of team sports (many separate and independent positions; a large number of explicit rules) as opposed to the turn-taking structure of girls games (hopscotch and jump rope)

--> boys bond through the risk of rule-breaking and through aggressing against other boys (the Aweaker@ boys -- sissies, Agirls@, Afags@) and they also bond by agressing against girls (invasions)

b. Girls World--> girls= groups -- smaller, more private and cooperative, and focused on relationships and intimacy

--> often complex networks -- girls often participate in tow or more pairs at one time

--> often talk about who is Abest friends@ with whom, or who is being mean to whom

--> relationships sometimes break off, and girls hedge bets by structuring networks of potential friends

--> gestures of intimacy -- girls often stroke or comb their friends= hair; they notice and comment on one another=s physical appearance such as haircuts or clothes; they borrow and wear one another=s sweatshirts or sweaters

--> share secrets

--> bond through self-disclosure, with an implicit demand that the expression of one=s inadequacy will induce the friend to disclose a related inadequacy

--> girls are less likely to play team sports; more often engage in small-scale, turn-taking, cooperative kinds of play, and by fifth and sixth grades many of them spend recess standing around and talking

**** basically, different cultures perspective emphasizes -- boys stress position and hierarchy, whereas girls emphasize the construction of intimacy and connection

2. NO, Thorne argues

a. separate cultures is a problematic approach (p. 95)

--> we fall into it easily because of our own memories or observations that seem to support it -- but are these beliefs coming from the force of reality solely? or in part from deep-seated cultural beliefs about Athe nature@ of girls compared to boys?

b. One central problem -- we paint a picture of the experiences of only the most popular kids in school

-- so the different cultures/worlds literature doesn=t capture the experiences of all students, not even most students

- it focuses on the popular kids= portrayal of childhood gender relations

--> skew toward the most visible and dominant -- and a silencing and marginalization of the others -- can be found in much of the research on gender relations among children and youth

Boys= World--> and what about the group in the Oceanside school that seemed to anchor the boys= world --- this group included a girl, Jessie

--> in describing boys= world -- what about the other boys? -- the boys without a clique; that were kind of loners, floating from one free flowing group to another or from one close playmate one recess period to another playmate the next recess period

--> some boys had the triangle of friends going that was described as Atypical@ of girls not boys

--> if report just about the popular boys (most athletic) then must distort the experiences of more than half the boys in Ms. Bailey=s classroom

Girls= World

--> conventional emphasis on friendship pairs and shifting alliances masks not only the experience of those without intense affiliations, but also the complex range of girls= interactions

-- in some activities girls interact in large groups (the playground troupes -- 5 or 6 girls; 6-8 girls

playing on the bars, talking, doing tricks, and sometimes lining up in a row to twirl their bodies in unison)

-- separate cultures dichotomies gloss the fact that interaction varies by activity and context

--> generalizations about Agirls= culture@ come primarily from research done with girls who are class-privileged and white; the experiences of girls of other class, race and ethnic backgrounds tend to be marginalized

--> girls also engaged in behaviors that are suggested to be Atypically male@ -- using insults, threats, and physical fighting (not as often and not by all girls but we can=t ignore them)

c. Another problem -- exaggerates gender difference and neglects within-gender variation, including cross-cutting sources of division and commonality like social class and ethnicity

--> Carol Jacklin has observed, in her study of preschool girls and boys, A80 to 85% of the boys remain indistinguishable from 80 to 85% of the girls@

--> in this study and others, within-gender variation is greater than differences between boys and girls taken as groups

--> also, findings of difference in research are often more likely to be published than findings of no difference

--> we often exaggerate gender differences by our interpretations of behaviors -- for example

-- Gilligan argues girls have a Adifferent voice@ emphasizing relationships and care, in contrast with boys= preoccupation with individual rights and abstract principles of justice

-- Gilligan acknowledges, however, that the same individual (male or female) may use both voices, mixing them

-- so basically, the voices may be gendered nonetheless because themes of Aconnection and care@ are historically and symbolically associated with girls and women, and Arights and justice@ with boys and men.

--> in short, a given piece of social interaction may be simultaneously cooperative and competitive, self-assertive and oriented to others, and brash and vulnerable

-- these qualities do not sharply divide by gender

-- this subtlety and complexity become lost when analysis proceeds through a series of gender-linked contrasts and when varied dimensions of gender are

compressed into static dualism

--> Thorne argues that the feminist movement actually helped to create these different cultures/worlds approach

-- feminist wanted and brought girls into the literature when they had never been considered before

-- this is great and everything but girls were brought into the literature as being very different from boys and living in a separate world from boys

--> Thorne argues that it is time to move beyond this dichotomy/dualism that exaggerates differences between boys and girls which has in part been inspired by feminist research

--> Thorne argues that kids are not that different from one another and we need to recognize that they participate in their own socialization

C. Kids cross the gender divide (ch. 7 -- p. 111)--> these kids do not fit into the different cultures dichotomy

--> we need to examine these experiences

--> most of the college women Thorne interviewed fondly remember being a Tomboy when growing up (most of the women didn=t fit into the different cultures approach then)

[but my question is why? Did they remember being a tomboy at school or in their neighborhoods where we already know about mixed gender play?]

--> Thorne asks -- When gender boundaries are in force, how, and with what consequences, do individuals seek to cross the Agender divide@ and gain access to groups and activities of the other gender?

Let=s first talk about Tomboys and Sissies

Tomboy--> spirited and adventuresome, like to move freely and to be outdoors; dislikes dresses and feminine adornments, and they are drawn to activities associated with boys

--> term Tomboy has sexist overtones -- implying that an independent and energetic girl is abnormal

-- why call a girl a quasi boy just because she likes to dress comfortably, play sports, climb trees, go on adventures, or have boys as companions?

-- the term may protest against but it also helps perpetuate gender stereotypes

-- the term also pits females against one another

-- until the girls Acome of age@ and are then reintegrated with Afemales@ and come to see females in a positive light and they come to see her in a positive light

--> in literature -- fictional characters have these traits

-- mixed messages are often portrayed because although the authors are rooting for their fictional tomboys, they also conclude the story with the girl=s entry into adolescence and young womanhood, when she ultimately succumbs, at least partially, to that which she has struggled against and begins to value traits and activities associated with Athe feminine@

--> Kids rarely use this term though. Why?

-- is it because tomboy is an identity that consolidates more in retrospect than in the present?

-- is it a generational thing? There is social change and therefore girls are no longer viewed as Tomboys when they possess these characteristics?

-- Or kids just no longer use the word Tomboy, they use words like jock instead?

Sissy

--> negative connotations

--> a sissy is a person whose character, interest, and behavior partake too much of qualities, such as timidity, passivity, and dependence, that are stereotyped as childish, and as female

--> sissy similar to calling someone a Acrybaby@, Ababy@, Ascaredy-cat@

--> when applied to boys, Asissy@ conveys not only immaturity but also gender and sexual deviance (sissy is a failed male)

--> cross-gender behavior leads to social ostracism and parental concern (more for boys than for girls)

--> in literature-- in the history of U.S. children=s literature there have been few males who parallel the stock figure of the tomboy, that is, who affirm their right to engage in Afeminine@ pursuits and who thereby question dominant notions of masculinity

-- unlike literary tomboys, who often have male, and sometimes female, companions, literary sissies remain relatively isolated as they pursue their interests and successfully weather criticism from their fathers and other boys.

-- but while fictional sissies triumph and gain some acceptance for who they are, fictional tomboys experience eventual loss and resignation.

Crossing

--> popular kids can cross over because they already have extensive social resources; one=s masculinity or femininity can go unchallenged (best athlete so masculinity is not questioned when John plays jump rope)

--> easier in neighborhood settings than in school

--> age-- by fifth grade an extreme asymmetry becomes evident in patterns of crossing: girls, much more often than boys, seek access to groups and activities of the other gender.

-- by fifth grade the boys are engaging in more organized sports rather than the informal chase and pretend stuff they did when younger

-- some girls played sports with the boys at this age but it was rare

-- much more stigmatizing for boys at this age to want to play the Agirls= games@ like jump rope or playing on the bars

-- when they do, they really aren=t always welcome by the opposite gender (girls chased Brian away from their jump rope game three times in one day)

-- run the risk of being called a sissy or just not having any friends (Brian was pretty much a loner)

-- Jessie who played all the organized sports with boys, and hung out with the boys in Ms. Bailey=s class was crossing successfully and was also accepted by her girl friends too. Not a loner

Components of Successful Crossing--> what does it take to gain access to groups and activities of the other gender, without notably disrupting or altering what goes on?

1. Perseverance in spite of the risk of being labeled or teased

2. Protection of high status or Aexperimental stance@

3. Having respect of other kids ----- Her skills in athletics and in verbal and physical confrontation (it was widely acknowledged that she could beat up any boy in the school) gained Jessie a kind of wary respect.

4. Skill -- adept at negotiating the junctures of social interaction -- initiating activities, forming new groups, and securing access to groups already formed

5. Skill -- at the actual game//// Jessie could play any sport and jump rope well so she had access to all. Brian had access to the bars with the girls because he was just as good as they were.

6. Friendship with popular kids also is a resource in crossing

7. Avoid heterosexual meanings -- reduce or minimize the salience of gender (if it is not, it can act as a barrier to crossing)

8. Younger you are, the easier it is to cross.