...And That's What Little Girls Are Made Of.

            This year, my TSS job finds me in a kindergarten class every afternoon.  This is my first time in kindergarten (besides of course that time I was the one learning my ABCs).  Sitting in the classroom as mostly a silent observer, I’ve been privy to in vivo observations of the child development that was conceptualized in our graduate courses.  This year has been especially exciting because of the rapid rate at which learning occurs for the students and the overt expression of that growth.  Besides the educational growth, I have found the development and expression of gender within the classroom to be especially intriguing.  

Differences between the genders appear to be apparent to the children but it does not lead to self-segregation.  During free time they engage in mixed gender play, opposite gender friendships and partner choices.  Where gender is made obvious, in classroom rules, routines, and lessons, adults have imposed it.  Common expressions heard from the teacher include: “Girls repeat first, then the boys; If you’re a girl, then stand up; or the girls get pink and the boys get blue.”  There seems to be a distinct cyclical nature of gender socialization.  From day one, adults teach children, directly and indirectly, what it means to be a girl or a boy according to gendered characteristics that are assumed to be natural.  When that child grows up she teaches her own children or students similar lessons about gender.  Her children will eventually teach their children gender-norms, and on and on.  In my opinion gender equality is contingent on an understanding of gender differences based in biology and ones that have been imposed by the culture. 

            Here in kindergarten, it’s safe to assume that even if a kid can dress himself independently, the parents are the ones who have ultimate control over what makes it into the closet.  The exact nature of this phenomenon certainly varies with the economic and cultural make-up of a community.  The school where I have spent the last two months is a rural-suburban community in Lancaster County.  The teaching staff is entirely white and the student majority is white and middle class with the resources for more material goods than their urban neighbors.  The boys wear an unofficial uniform of jeans, a t-shirt, and sneakers.  The girls, however, vary widely in their style of dress.  Some wear clothes similar to the boys while others come to school everyday in a dress and sparkly sandals.  I had not recognized the implications of the differences in dress until gym class a few weeks ago.  The class was taught a passing/running game to work on functional motor and cognitive skills.  One girl, in a skirt and red velvet flats had to sit out of the game because of the impracticality of her outfit for the activity.  It occurred to me then, that this brand of isolation from the group is very rarely imposed on boys; they are always dressed in clothes that facilitate activity.  Girls might have more variety in clothing choice, some more gender enforcing than others, but not all of those options allow for equal participation. 

            Could there be an additive effect to this brand of gendered segregation?  Over time, these students will witness many other instances where their female cohorts will be set apart because of practical limitations of their clothing.  Each time that red velvet shoed girl comes to school in an outfit unfit for gym class and has to sit out, she is being indirectly taught that she is less fit for physical activity and that gym-type activities are not feminine.  Furthermore, the male students see only girls sitting out, possibly leading to the adoption of standard social acceptance of women as uninterested in and less fit for physical exertion.

            According to Linda Gottfredson’s Theory of Circumscription and Compromise, career choice involves ruling out jobs deemed unfit based on stereotypes of the job and the individual.  In adulthood girls might discount careers that require physical exertion or masculine qualities.  Do little girls want to wear dresses and pretty shoes because of a natural proclivity or only because adults have reinforced gender standards? Is it even possible to tease out these separate influencers?