F.R.E.E.
Welcome to the Web page of the Foundation for Role Equity Education. We'll be bringing you information about gender role equity. If you want to contact us, you can reach us at either of the addresses listed here.
Writer's Guidelines
Articles currently available include:
Harvard Accepts Director's Papers
Raising Our Children on Equal Terms
They Didn't Ask and I Didn't Tell
Ending Patriarchy as We Know It
Social Norms: Patriarchy's Newest Weapon Against Women
Donna L. Hall is an attorney in California who handles many appeals in child dependency matters and criminal and civil cases. He is also the president of this organization, and can be reached at adonna@cox.net Contact Donna regarding problems with the web page.
Mark Ethan Smith is the Secretary-Treasurer of FREE, one of the founding members, and a published author. He is available for speaking engagements. Mark is a non-traditional, heterosexual older female. He writes and edits this newsletter.He can be reached at:
mymark@gmail.comVirginia Sherwood is a research librarian.. Back to Home
Nontraditional News
Founded in 1997 by the Foundation for Role Equity Education
Editorial Policy
This publication is for, by, and about women, and dedicated to eliminating discrimination. Therefore, as a matter of editorial policy, we have reset our default assumptions from male to female. Traditionally inclusive terms such as "he," "him," and "his," as used herein, refer exclusively to women, both generically and specifically. For example, since our new default assumption is female, if a sentence says, "He is a professor," you can be absolutely certain that he is a woman otherwise the sentence would have to read, "He is a male professor."
Sex Ed In The Preschool
The fifties are generally considered to have been a decade of sexual repression. Those of us who were children in the first half of this century didn't have vaginas and penises like preschool kids do today; boys had "pee-pees" and girls had "down there." Nowadays toddlers are much more sexually sophisticated. They know what they have even if they are still so young that the only thing they can do with their tiny penises and vaginas is taunt each other. They do that every chance they get, and they are well practiced in sexual harassment long before they have any other concept of sex.
The problem seems to have begun with the etymologically recent invention of sex-based pronouns. Early English speakers used only one pronoun for everyone, as the Chinese did until a century ago, and the use of a separate pronoun for females appears to have begun as an insult, a meaning which preschool boys still seem to impute to it today. Although modern English speakers find it as essential to identify and refer to people by sex as Spanish speakers do to refer to inanimate objects by gender, both usages are actually arbitrary and unnecessary.
Sex-based pronouns cause a problem when infants are learning to speak, as they must quickly learn how to distinguish people by sex in order to refer to them with the appropriate sex-based pronouns. Parents, who have the thankless task of teaching patriarchal traditions to toddlers, know that they have to send their kids off to daycare or preschool with a firm command of sex-based pronouns. And when children question why such distinctions are necessary, they are quickly taught about penises and vaginas.
The theory behind giving little ones this knowledge is that when a 4-year-old boy teases a 4-year-old girl with, "I have a penis and you don't," the girl can and will respond, "Well, I have a vagina and you don't, so there." But the boy is apt to insist that the penis is better because it enables one to pee standing up. In simple self-defense, the girl is then taught to respond that vaginas are better because they can have babies. As the verbal jousting escalates and boys come home from preschool wanting vaginas so that they can have babies too and be just as good as girls, it is incumbent on the boys' parents to explain that vaginas can't have babies without penises. If there is any further need for sex education after preschool, apart from the importance of safe sex and planned parenthood, I can't imagine what it might be. The mechanics of heterosexual intercourse and reproduction are well known by age five because there is simply no way to explain and justify sex-based pronouns without explaining sex, and in a sex-based hierarchy sex-based pronouns are of primary importance.
Sex-based pronouns do not merely refer to sex, as we may suppose, they play an important part in creating it. In Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male & Female, (Anchor Books, 1996), Phyllis Burke writes of the way in which intersexual children, those who are not obviously male or female at birth, are often surgically mutilated so that they can be assigned to one sex or the other. The fact that such children exist demonstrates what many feminists have been saying: that sex is a continuum and that the patriarchal dichotomization of people into two and only two sexes is an artificial construct of patriarchal societies. Pronouns, names and costumes, genital mutilation, behavior modification, drugs and shock treatment are only some of patriarchy's tools for creating a clear division between the sexes that does not exist in nature. And, as in most cases where an imaginary structure is superimposed on a natural one, even the most drastic tortures often fail to achieve their desired ends.
Like most feminists, I find it disgusting when some dinosaur claims to be using the word he inclusively, as it would obviously not be understood that way by most readers. Until this publication was created, in fact, nobody had figured out how to change the default assumption for supposedly inclusive terms from male to female in the minds of readers. We did it by co-opting the term, announcing it as a fait accompli, explaining it, and then demonstrating how it is done. By using "traditionally inclusive" terms so that they refer solely and exclusively to females, readers are reaily able to change their life-long default assumptions from male to female.
But this is only a first step towards eliminating sex-based discrimination. For boys and girls to be able to think of each other as equals rather than opposites, they must be raised to refer to everyone in the same term s without regard to sex. Think how much simpler it will be for infants learning to talk when they don't have to worry about whether an adult with long hair wearing jeans has a penis or a vagina. And think of how much easier life will be for parents and teachers.
But what about love stories? If someone writes, "He kissed him," how do we know if we have two females, two males, or one of each? Well, let's try it. Here's a sample:
Chris wasn't a particularly romantic woman, but he had begun to think that Pat wasn't such bad company after all, for a man. As they drove home from the beach Chris could see that Pat was starting to doze off. Chris pulled off the road at a rest stop, parked the car, and thought about how perfect the day had been. He'd needed some fun and Pat had kept them both laughing all afternoon. Chris smiled as Pat slumped lower in his seat and started to snore gently, and then he leaned over and kissed him softly on the forehead. Maybe tonight would be special for both of them....
Okay, I'm not a romance writer, but were there any problems with clarity? We have one male and one female, both with names that are not distinguishable by sex, and both using the same pronoun. Did you have any difficulty knowing who kissed whom? And the exact same thing can be done with two females, two males, or any other combination. Once a person's sex is explicitly stated, they retain their genital status in the reader's mind unless it is explicitly changed. And while it is entirely appropriate to state a person's sex, ethnicity, or other distinguishing characteristic once, further repetition is not only superfluous but suspect. Until readers become comfortable with having the word he refer to a specific woman or to women in general, it isn't possible to use it inclusively. And until this publication began we lacked the knowledge, power and desire to co-opt the supposedly inclusive he and make it our own.
The problem with sex-based language is that it is divisive. Where patriarchy spoke of men, fathers, and sons, the language excluded females entirely and was obviously sexist. Insistence upon so-called inclusive language mandated a change to women and men, mothers and fathers, and daughters and sons, but this was still sexist and divisive even if females were no longer invisible. Truly inclusive language would refer simply to people, parents and children, without regard to sex. In the struggle for equal rights without regard to sex, it simply isn't helpful to demand separate and different treatment based on sex.
With the reprint of an article from our first issue in an undergraduate college textbook (Experiencing Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, 2nd Ed., Virginia Cyrus, Mayfield, 1997), some students will be exposed for the first time to the use of pronouns in a manner that is truly without regard to sex. The textbook suggests follow-up discussions and it would be interesting to know what the reactions are. Similar discussions in usenet groups fifteen years ago showed that most women had little or no problem in changing their internal default assumptions from male to female, but that almost all males were fiercely resistant to sharing something that has been exclusively theirs up until now.
But it is in preschool and earlier, not in college, that terms of equality must be established in order to eliminate sex-based discrimination later on in life. Only if children are taught to use words in a truly inclusive way without regard to sex, and they can hear and read others doing so, will they believe it can be done. In fact children so raised are likely to find it ludicrous that anyone ever did otherwise.
Of course if equal terms did begin to catch on, there might be a backlash. Fundamentalist fanatics might push school boards to ban inclusive language, or even bomb egalitarian preschools, but it is impossible to stand in the way of progress for long. In a nuclear world where we may all die equally anyway, we have nothing to lose by living as equals and much to gain by teaching our children to respect each other without regard to sex After all, it's not just a matter of grammatical usage, it's the law.
Unfortunately, anti-discrimination laws and our Constitutional rights to equal treatment don't stand much of a change of changing our patriarchal society by themselves. In creating a 2-caste, sex-based hierarchy, patriarchy took all the human traits associated with power and success and called them masculine, and all the human traits associated with weakness and failure and called them feminine. Whenever a girl or woman tries to be successful or to have equal power with males, society accuses them of being unfeminine by definition.
The real problem is that people tend to become whatever they're told that they are. In an experiment performed in 1972-73 for the U.S. Office of Naval Research by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, adult males with no criminal records who were chosen for their emotional stability, were arbitrarily assigned the roles of guards and prisoners, and quickly fulfilled these stereotypes. More recent studies have shown that children of equal ability who were arbitrarily assigned to teachers as being either gifted or slow learners, also satisfied these expectations. Since most psychological studies in this country have been funded by the Department of Defense, it is possible that the most important proofs of how easily people are shaped by what they are told have been classified and are therefore not available. But there are sufficient studies known to illustrate the fact that we tend to become exactly what we are told by others that we are, regardless of our past history or degree of self-esteem. If we want an egalitarian society it is therefore essential that children whose identities are not yet formed be given affirmations of equality.
Unfortunately, as Phyllis Burke points out in Gender Shock, this is not at all what our society does to children. Many parents and teachers believe that they have to reinforce stereotypical gender role behavior in children. When children act in nonstereotypical ways, such as boys wanting to play with dolls or to make friends with girls rather than tease them, or when girls want to play baseball or fight with boys instead of playing with dolls, they can be deemed to have a gender identity disorder and referred for psychiatric treatment. Ostensibly such treatment is to prevent children from developing into homosexuals, even though homosexuality itself is no longer considered to be a mental disease. Burke documents cases where children have been tortured by the medical profession in the guise of "treatment" to discourage them from treating other children as equals. In forcing kids to suppress half their humanity in the name of gender conformity, patriarchy may actually be creating the homosexual identities it claims to oppose.
If we tell young boys who wish to befriend rather than sexually harass girls, or young girls who wish to compete on equal terms with rather than just be supportive of boys, that they are sissies or tomboys, it is likely that many of them will simply become what we tell them they are. And if we teach children contempt for the opposite sex, isn't it likely that some of them will grow up to seek relationships with people they can respect and who can respect them in return? The boy who is told, "You don't want to plays with those dolls only girls play with dolls," isn't as apt to think, "Oh dear, what was I doing with stupid girl toys?" as to think, "But I really did want to play with those dolls and I was having fun maybe I'm not really a boy, maybe I'm a girl." And the girl who is told, "You don't really want to get your clothes messed up playing those rough boy games," is less apt to think, "Oh, right, my clothes are much more important than I am," as to think, "But I was having fun and my team was winning. I don't care about clothes, so maybe I'm not really a girl, maybe I'm a boy."
Sex education for preschoolers is designed to teach them that the sexes are different and opposite and have different ways of behaving. They have to be taught this because it isn't true and cannot be observed until it is taught. By stressing human differences rather than our common humanity we lay the groundwork for future sex-based discrimination. By attempting to force children to adhere to stereotypical gender role behavior, we cause them to question their own gender identities. Unless we reassure kids that boys can play with dolls and still be boys, and that girls can play baseball and still be girls, their natural tendency to want to do everything will be construed as deviancy and punished rather than rewarded.
Raising girls as equals to boys can't hurt their chances in life. Fewer than 10% have any chance of being supported by a husband, and of these some will be battered or abused wives, or soon find themselves widowed or divorced and in drastically reduced circumstances. Instead of asking why many women stay with batterers, we should be asking why so many women are willing to put themselves in positions of dependency in the first place. The choice a dependent has is to suffer abuse or leave. Those with the ability to leave often do so, but children and women who are in positions of dependency because they had no other choice in the first place, are set up for victimization.
Most girls today will grow up to live in dual-income families, to be the sole support of disabled, unemployed, or house husbands, or to be single parents, lesbians, or career women. For more than 9 out of 10 girls their future earning capacity will be more important than their ability to attract a husband, and in many cases their earning capacity will be a large part of their ability to attract a husband. And of the most feminine and attractive women in the world, some will have the misfortune of attracting rapists or serial killers instead of husbands, so even their futures are not secure by being based on appearance. But it is the girls who are raised with traditional expectations of marriage and family who are most likely, in their efforts to attract and keep a husband, to end up as welfare mothers being forced into a job for which they are not prepared.
Until now feminists have had little patience with sexual harassers, but it turns out that male confusion may be genuine after all. The harassment of females that was expected if not mandatory behavior for boys from their earliest years, behavior that had to be demonstrated because males who did not harass females were subject to physical violence from peers (as in a recent suit won by a gay boy against a high school), torture (as in the cases Burke cites of behavioral modification techniques), ineligibility to serve in our nation's armed forces, or, at the very least, suspicion, teasing, and ostracism, is suddenly declared to be illegal in the workplace. Men must truly be confused. In fact they must wonder if in order to obey the law by refraining from sexual harassment, they are now required to let people think that they might be gay. There is no clearer illustration of the problem than a case Burke describes where a boy who makes friends with girls is considered to have a gender identity problem, treated, and only considered to be cured after breaking off friendships with girls and joining another boy in harassing girls.
Current efforts to extend tolerance in schools to homosexuals are aimed at extending the number of socially permissible sex-based stereotypes, rather than at ending stereotypes altogether and allowing children to develop their abilities without regard to sex. We are stuck in patriarchal traditions and we don't yet have models for equality. When girls attempt to compete on equal terms with boys, while still deviating from all the norms that male acceptance requires, they are doomed to frustration. To say that everyone should have short hair except the girls, as the military prep schools did, is to discriminate against girls, thereby demonstrating to boys that such discrimination is condoned. When the girls cut their hair they are not trying to be like boys or to be boys, but simply refusing to stand out like freaks in an atmosphere where conformity is essential to survival and success.
As Burke points out, many masculine women (and feminine men) are happily heterosexual, so gender-appropriate behavior and appearance do not determine orientation. If we want to become a human, civilized, viable and egalitarian species, we must begin by rejecting all the discriminatory relics of patriarchy. And if patriarchy responds with genocide, we must persist, knowing that genocide is the way patriarchy began, the way it maintains itself, and that it will remain genocidal whether we conform or not, which is why it has failed and must cease.
We must stop teaching sex and gender role education in the preschools. If we raise girls exactly like boys, we will soon stop raising boys in ways that are not beneficial to human welfare. The necessity of preparation for hand-to-hand combat in a nuclear age is only one indication that our present modes of sex and gender-identity education are outdated and worthless. As parents, teachers and feminists, we are the only ones who should control the sex education of our preschool and elementary school children. And we must see that they are raised differently from the way we were raised unless we want them to have the same problems that we have. In some countries women are still genitally mutilating their daughters, so we know that the desire to do unto others as we ourselves were done to is strong. But that's not the Golden Rule. Today we are the ones supporting our families, so today we are the ones who can make the rules, and the first rule should be that we do nothing to girls that we would not do to boys. Only if we start by giving our children equal respect without regard to sex, can they grow up to do the same with each other.
Articles Welcomed
Thoughtful articles consistent with our editorial policy are welcome. You can either email them to Mark E. Smith mymarkx@ureach.com or mail them to the Foundation for Role Equity Education, P.O. Box 181402, Coronado, CA 92178-1402. If you mail them, please keep a copy for yourself, or send a stamped self-addressed envelope for manuscript return.
Nontraditional News is the online newsletter of Foundation for Role Equity Education, a California nonprofit corporation 501(c)(3), dedicated to eliminating sex-based discrimination through education. F.R.E.E. is an all-volunteer effort and all space and services are donated; we pay no rent or salaries.
The rights to all material published herein are reserved and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior permission in writing. Permission is herewith granted to women's studies departments, women's resource centers, and feminists for reproduction of material to be used for the noncommercial purpose of eliminating sex-based discrimination through education.
