This week the topic of discussion centered on the importance of gender roles, and current views on homophobia within children’s material. Personally, I believe in children being children; I believe that there is too large of an emphasis being placed on what box a child should conform themselves to, and by whose opinion they are being placed within the box. Referring again back to the cycle of socialization, the initial starting point begins with a child having no consciousness or concept of bias or prejudice, in the same manner, they have no concept of what gender roles really entail until culturally speaking the elders or guardians of the children introduce the idea into the picture (Harro, 2010). I have noticed that the concept of heterosexism, has always been placed in most books, which I would attribute to the fact that scientifically, a man and a woman are the progenitors of life. There is no getting around that fact, no matter what you identify or how you choose to live your life (ie. Heterosexual or homosexual), and that fact of how the life cycle is being presented can never be altered conceptually. Now I know that people are currently hollering that this is scientifically being modified and altered as we speak, but I believe that is the point—it is being altered from its original concept and form. Children’s materials and encouraged play is beginning to be more and more “political” in the sense that children are being watched to see how they identify through the mere aspect of dolls and role-play (Pelo, 2008). In a sense I believe this to be wrong in theory (the analyzation of how a child identifies merely by what toy he or she engages within natural play and curiosity)—because simply because a boy picks up a doll and plays with a doll does not make him a homosexual; however, I believe that unconsciously we can unknowingly encourage these thoughts simply by offering materials in repetition to a child who may have not been thinking in that manner (and vice versa with girls). I think that a child should identify as a child…pure in thought, not worrying about the semantics and ultimately, they will consciously grow natural into what their Creator intended them to be in life.
In the video that I am sharing, I believe that the children
had formulated opinions that came from various sources. In this video, there is
a non-conforming person (technically who was born a female or “girl”) who
identified as both male and female. The concept I found interesting here, was
that it was not the genetic side that made them feel more closely knit towards
one or the other (male or female) it was more about not conforming to the
standards that were placed within society. In that sense, I do not find that
odd, because historically speaking, women were just as much as a strong warrior
in various cultures as men, and many times exceeded men in this sense. The
thought process of women being meek and complacent, and men always being aggressive
and egotistical, is a thought process that was introduced somewhere in time. As
our resource states: “Gender, ethnicity, and religion are among the factors
that shape how children view themselves in relation to others” (Woodhead &
Oates, 2008). Remembering this identity fact should re-center our focus on
allowing children to be children, be careful about what influences we introduce
to make them feel forced or conformed to a particular stereotype.
Resources:
Woodhead, M., & Oates, J. (Eds.) (2010).Developing Positive Identities: Diversity and Young
Children. Retrieved from
https://bernardvanleer.org/publications-reports/developing-positive-identities-diversity-and-young-children/
Harro, B. (2010). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (Figure 6.1 on p. 46, 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pelo, A. (Ed.). (2008). Rethinking early childhood education. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
