critical

78 contexts.org

But junior year came, and with it the core courses of Macro

Sociology, Micro Sociology, and, of course, The Logic of Soci-

ological Inquiry—the fancy term for Research Methods at my

school.

I entered the class with my mind set on researching child-

ren in some way. Between babysitting and working at sum-

mer camps, I’ve spent years working with children and

watching their interactions with each other in many settings.

After taking a Sociology of Gender course my sophomore year,

I became interested in gender socialization, or the process of

learning our cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity

and the normal behaviors attached to those meanings. I

became particularly interested in how this

concept affects children and their inter-

actions with each other.

In Soc of Gender, we read an excerpt

from Barrie Thorne’s book Gender Play

that described how children learn and

teach each other about gender. Through-

out the reading, which Thorne published more than 15 years

ago, I reflected on my own experiences with kids and how this

process still applies to kids today. Taking my research methods

course one year later finally gave me the opportunity to exam-

ine first hand how children “do” gender in the 21st century.

A local public playground was the best and most accessible

place for me to watch kids in action in a fairly unstructured

environment. I also conducted a one-hour observation at the

community building where the town-run after school program

is held so I could see children in a more structured environ-

ment where specific activities were usually taking place.

I observed many different behaviors at the playground.

Some clearly resembled what we typically think of as feminine,

such as the nurturing and quiet activities expected of girls. This

theme of stereotypically feminine behavior recurred as I

watched the girls in their peer groups, with one group of three

girls building a home for fairies and another building a nest

for their stuffed duck toy. These acts of making homes or nests

for imaginary beings are very much feminine behaviors: quiet,

creative play that included the nurturing and even domestic

qualities expected of young girls. In addition to these younger

girls, there was a group of older girls quietly doing their home-

work at the picnic table.

The boys’ behaviors were a little less clear. At the play-

ground, they were much louder. When I first got there, an older

boy next to me yelled loudly along with other boys who were

just running around and yelling to each other. A few boys said

they were doing “challenges,” which seems to be in accord

with the adventurous and competitive behaviors stereotypical

of boys. During my observation in the community building, I

noticed the boys here were also much louder than the girls.

Although only three girls were in the room I observed at

first, I did notice some differences between their activities and

the boys’. In all, the boys were more active and loud than the

girls. Some boys dragged each other around on a chair, and oth-

ers just ran around and were generally more active. It’s hard

to compare to girls in this scenario because after a short while

only one remained, but this loud and “disruptive” behavior

among boys was a pattern I found at both sites where I con-

ducted my observations.

These behaviors were easy to categorize, but other behav-

iors and activities weren’t. For example, two girls were involved

in a variety of activities, including playing on the monkey bars.

This behavior seemed more gender-neutral than building fairy

homes and duck nests. Another situation involved a group of

three boys and two girls taking part in a running competition.

These kids made a “track” around the playground and said

wchildrenandgenderby emily yearwoodwhat i LEARNED

Taking a research methods course gave me the opportunity to examine first hand how children “do” gender in the 21st century.

Takingaresearchmethodscoursewasnotonmytop10listof things

to do. Although reading the findings of other researchers always

interested me, the idea of conducting my own research scared and

intimidated me.

79summer 2009 contexts

they were going to run around it.

This shows another example of two girls taking part in play

that doesn’t seem to have any stereotypical feminine qualities.

There were no signs of “boys versus girls” play like chasing or

contests, as was common among the children Barrie Thorne

observed. Instead, it was everyone for themselves. In the past,

competition and sports were equated more with masculine

behavior. But, with the changing times and the inclusion of more

females in sports, perhaps these previously

“masculine” behaviors have found their

way to a more “gender-neutral” place.

Back inside the community center, I

looked at other such things as clothing and

the crafts kids were making. I noticed that

one girl drew flowers whereas the boys

tended to draw lines, shapes, and turkeys (but no flowers). As

far as clothing goes, three girls were wearing something pink,

but none of the boys were. On the playground, 13 of the 15

girls there wore pink, but no boys did.

Although my research focused on the children and how they

acted out their gender, I came to see the larger social forces

at play here. It’s the parents who dress their little girls in pink

and pierce their ears before they’re even able to speak. It’s the

media that show girls playing with baby dolls and boys with

G.I. Joes. And it’s society as a whole that emphasizes this gen-

dered America.

As kids grow up, these attitudes and roles are so engrained

through socialization that gendered behavior is the norm. Once

the children enter school, the behavior expected from boys

and girls continues to be based on gender, and peers are quick

to socialize those who were previously “unaware.” When a

child acts outside the lines of their gender, their peers will prob-

ably point out the strange behavior, whether it’s a boy playing

with “girl” toys, or a girl acting like a “tomboy.” As many

young boys will say, one of the most hurtful things that can

be said about a boy is that he’s “acting like a girl.”

Sociological research has shown this gendered behavior,

pushed on children at a young age, has many consequences,

including a negative impact on future relationships and the

future roles the children will play. The role of the young girl as

a nurturing care-taker to stuffed toys directly relates to the tra-

ditional role of women as home-makers and men as bread win-

ners. This narrow vision of the role of women in society is

constricting to children today, despite the great advancements

of the feminist movement. The societal vision of men as tough

and insensitive has negative consequences on their emotional

and mental health, as well as on their relationships with oth-

ers. These consequences of “doing gender” touch just briefly

upon a deeply researched area of sociology that is in itself an

extremely interesting subject.

Acting out your gender is such a part of American culture

it’s nearly impossible to recognize unless you’re made aware

of it. This intimidating research process turned out to be one

of the most beneficial and educating experiences I’ve had—it

opened my eyes to the many ways children learn and teach

others how to act their gender.

After spending years working with children, introducing

sociology into my world view has allowed me to notice things

I’ve never seen before. I recognize the impact of outside forces,

like the media, popular culture, parents, and peers, on chil-

dren and their development, and how children and adults, in

many ways, are a product of our society. I’ve come to under-

stand that children’s “choices” to wear pink or play with G.I.

Joes may be less a choice and more the result of the clear and

constant messages they receive from those outside forces about

what it means to be a boy or girl in our society. This research

project, together with my course in gender, gave me the oppor-

tunity to experience first-hand what Barrie Thorne writes about,

and see for myself how children “do” gender.

recommended resources Barrie Thorne. Gender Play: Boys and Girls in School (Rutgers Uni- versity Press, 1993).

Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman. “Doing gender,” Gender & Society (1987) 1: 125–151.

Emily Yearwood is a junior at the University of Maine. She wrote a version of

this essay for her Logic of Social Inquiry class in Fall 2008, which was taught by

Amy Blackstone.

After spending years working with children, intro- ducing sociology into my world view has allowed me to notice things I’ve never seen before.

We encourage instructors to nominate first-person essays like this one by sending their students’ work of no more than 1,200 words, contact information, and a note about the class and assignment to [email protected].

Contexts, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 78–79. ISSN 1536-5042, electronic ISSN 1537-6052. © 2009 American Sociological Association. All rights reserved. For permission to photocopy or reproduce see http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/ctx.2009.8.3.78.