Gender Equity: Political Feminism Goes to School

Lydia Percival Meuret

Is there any reasonable person who finds the word "manhole" discriminatory?

Is there any responsible educator in America who believes students in high school should be taught that Emily Post's etiquette is sexist?

Unfortunately, the answer is "yes." Responsibility and reason are outmoded in some of our public schools. Silliness rules, though the people who promote such nonsense call it "gender equity."

Gender equity is a relatively new concept, but it is already a fashionable trend in American schools. Its avowed purpose: the systematic elimination of all "gender bias" in primary and secondary schools.

On the surface, such a goal might seem admirable. After all, no one is in favor of bias. However, if you probe just beneath the surface, you find radical feminism looking for yet another way to demonstrate that women are the perennial victims of Western European culture-- scorned and oppressed by a patriarchal society. To understand why gender equity programs are absurd, you have only to confront the false or exaggerated assumption on which they are based-- the corrective measures they employ.

The fundamental premise of gender equity can be summarized as follows: There are no inherent differences between men and women, other than those that are anatomical-- no emotional or mental traits that are inherently masculine or feminine (1). All such distinction are artificial constructs of a male dominated society.

If, for example, boys were given dolls to play with and girls were given guns, men would society's nannies and women would be its soldiers. Each would take on the mental and emotional characteristics currently attributed to the other. Such a view ignores the recorded anecdotes of boys who, when given a doll, go around pretending to shoot things with it.

Consider the "Florida Vision for Gender Equity Programming," which maintains that "too often the terms 'sex' and 'gender' are used interchangeably in our society. It is important to understand that the term 'sex' refers to physical differences between men and women while the term 'gender' is used to refer to behavioral differences (2).

"Sex = Biologically determined physical differences between males and females. Gender = Socially/culturally generate attitudes and behaviors assigned to persons and referred to as masculine and feminine." (3).

In other words, if a man feels like a woman, then, according to this concept, his gender is female. Likewise, is a woman wears men's clothing and walks and talks like a man, then her gender is male.

As its core, this concept is what gender equity education is all about-- putting an end to the distinction between boys and girls and instead pretending they are only different because we've made them believe they are different.

Gender equity programs received an enormous boost with the publication of a survey and subsequent study conducted in 1990 and 1991 by the American Association of University Women (AAUW). This study-- entitled "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America"-- brought the gender equity movement into main stream education. The researchers, using a sample of nearly 3,000 children in grades 4-10 (ages 9-14), compared the responses of boys with those of girls on questions of self-esteem, career aspirations, educational experiences, and math and science interests. The result, according to the AAUW: lower self-esteem among girls, less intense career aspirations, and less interest in math and sciences (4).

Because they tend to value emotions more than knowledge, feminist claim that the greatest problem for girls is how they feel about things, including themselves. Thus the AAUW study focused on the highly subjective questions of self-esteem-- in this case self-described self-esteem.

Researchers claimed that he boys and girls entered school they had about the same level of self-esteem, with 60% of girls and 67% of boys answering "always true: to the question "I am happy the way that I am." By middle school, the survey reported a marked difference between boys and girls in this area, with 56% of boys holding themselves in high self-esteem, compared to only 37% of girls. By high school the "self-esteem gap" between boys and girls had widened further: Only 29% of girls held themselves in high esteem s compared to 46% of the boys (5).

Researchers concluded from this segment of the survey that girls were more likely to be inhibited in class. On the other hand, the researchers claimed, boys were more likely than girls to argue with their teacher when they thought they were correct. Boys also tended to believe they were good at doing many things (6).

According to the AAUW, the study constitutes scientific evidence that girls are the victims of institutional discrimination during their school years. Consequently, the nation's schools must take action to change its schools to ensure "equal treatment" that will in turn boost the self-esteem and ambition of its girls (7).

Many experts have questioned the legitimacy of this survey-- and for several reasons.

First, the AAUW conducted the survey to "put some facts behind" their already firm conviction that girls were being victimized. Any study that is designed to prove that is already assumed is open to suspicion. Traditionally social scientists prefer objectivity to pre-conceived conclusions (8).

Second, some critics have questioned the usefulness of asking children if they are happy with themselves "all the time." Few people, if anyone, can honestly answer "yes" to such a sweeping question. The more mature the respondent, the less likely an unequivocally affirmative repines. Thus some psychologists conclude that, as a whole, female children are simply more thoughtful when they respond that they are not happy with themselves "all the time." On the other hand, if male children tend to give a quick and thoughtless answer, then are they better served by the educational system than females or more poorly served?

Third, according to prevalent educational theory, tests should measure achievement in terms of concrete actions and behaviors rather than in subjective terms. Surely the AAUW researchers could have devised instruments that would have measured self-esteem in terms of actions rather than feelings reported.

Apparently non of these shortcomings in methodology disturbed either the AAUW or the educational establishment for which it was concocted. Predictably, the media put an energetic spin on the story, and the AAUW immediately began demanding that steps be taken to right these wrongs.

The answer: the imposition of gender equity education on all children at the earliest age possible. So what would such a course of action produce? An examination of existing gender equity materials is not encouraging. They are long on ideology and short on genuine content.

For example, the two most quoted "gender equity experts" are Myra and David Sadker. According to the Sadkers, the drop in self-esteem among maturing girls can be explained as follows:

The teachers typically initiate more communication with boys than girls in classrooms, thereby enhancing the sense of importance boys feel.

In class projects and assignments, teachers are more likely to give detailed instructions to boys than girls and more likely to take over and finish the task for girls, depriving them of active learning.

Teachers tend to praise boys more often than girls for the intellectual content and quality of their work. Girls are more often praise for their neatness and form. (11).

Other experts give different reasons for the self-esteem problems of girls. Some claim that girls experience a self-esteem crisis because of the names we give children. Consider this absurd passage from Parents, Teachers and Schools: "Several studies argue that parents choose pretty names for girls which are poly-syllabic, 'more melodic and softer.' Girls names are fussy and pretty and purt rather than serious. By contrast boys' names are short, hard-hitting, and explosive, " (12)

According to the AAUW, another evidence of gender inequity is the tendency of girls to lose their enthusiasm for science and mathematics as a direct consequence of losing their self-esteem. According to Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America: "The survey finds a strong relationship between perceived math and science skills and adolescent self-esteem. Of all the study's indicators, girls' perceptions of their ability in math and science had the strongest relationship to their self-esteem as girls learn that they are not good at these subjects, their sense of self-worth and aspirations for themselves decline," (13).

The observation fails to take into account more substantial and objective evidence that self-esteem-- particularly in relation to mathematical achievement-- may be no more than self-delusion.

American students are more likely than students from other nations to think highly of their mathematical ability, yet they consistently finish last or next to last in comparative international tests. Also, a few years ago children from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were asked to assess their ability in math and then to take a standardized math test. The District of Columbia students ranked highest in self-esteem and scored dead last on the achievement test.

Yet despite serious questions of methodology, organized feminists hail the AAUW survey as proof that sexism causes girls to dislike math and science. And the feminists are not alone. Some educational foundations have chosen to accept the study as fact and to frame their own educational agendas in terms of the AAUW's highly questionable claims.

What's more, even the U.S. government has accepted the study at face value. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, a federally funded organization, reports that the crisis in girls' attitudes toward math and science will have harmful effects on tomorrow's world, that "science and technology must no longer remain a white male preserve," (14) and that "the absence of women from the decision-making levels of science has produced a science that views the world from a male perspective and is therefore womanless," (15). According to this government program, the failure of scientists to recognize such a destructive educational bias has perpetuated the idea of "objectivity" in science (16).

The Clearinghouse also suggests decreasing laboratory exercises involving the killing of animals or giving treatment that may be perceived as "particularly harsh." They even wonder "if this laboratory is traditionally included in introductory biology. . .precisely because it serves as an initiation rite to discourage the students who feel too much empathy with animals from becoming biology majors," (17).

When experiments must be performed, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse agrees with feminists that female rats should be used rather than just male rats when experimenting (18).

According to the Eisenhower Clearinghouse, another example of the sinister masculine influence on the teaching of science is the emphasis on competition rather than cooperation. Research, the Clearinghouse claims, has shown that "females face the additional barrier of having their answers and theories about science devalued because of their speech patterns and other verbal and nonverbal methods of communication," (19). In discussing this point, the Clearinghouse also accepts at face value the questionable premise that girls really do have lower self-esteem than boys: "'Weeding out' teaching styles are less likely to appeal even to very able female students since women suffer from lower self-esteem in our society, " (20). Given the demonstrable fact that competition in the classroom can generate interest and excitement, what the Clearinghouse is clearly advocating is kinder, gentler, duller classes-- guaranteed to bore the liveliest and brightest students, female as well as male, and drive them out of the science courses for the rest of their school days.

The more your read these pronouncements, the more you doubt the seriousness or good sense of the people who argue that girls' names influence their achievement, that high school biology labs are deliberately designed to drive girls out of science courses and that science should be more subjective and emotional. Yet these people are indeed serious-- and they are making progress in their drive to alter the nature of American schools.

In order to right "inequity," the gender police have already created mountains of curricula and programs. Here are just a few examples of initiatives proposed or adopted by educators in order to rectify the "victimization" of girls and women.

Threescore and Five: A booklet of Gender Equity Ideas for Elementary Teachers to Develop Critical Thinking Skills Among Students, issued by the Michigan Department of Education's Office for Sex Equity. This booklet, which is also disturbed by other states, suggests the following gender equity exercises for elementary schools:

1) Decorate the school Christmas tree with symbols of equal rights, peace, cooperation, justice, etc. Use nonflammable paper, plastic or other media (21).

2) Organize a People Scavenger Hunt, using a worksheet to have students find classmates who do unusual or nontraditional things for their sex. Tabulate the results and calculate percentages for selected items on the worksheet (22).

3) Have each student create a personalized kite. Leave plenty of room on the kite tail for students to add a bow anytime they feel they have done something nontraditional for their sex-- "My kite tail grows as I do," (23).

4) Listen to a song from the women's movement. Discuss the images of women as they are presented in the song (24).

5) Capitalize on the holidays to challenge students' sex-biased expectations. Examples: Recognize women in the military on Memorial Day, make snow people at Christmas and Jack and Jill O' Lanterns at Halloween, parenting as a (unrecognized) job forgotten on Labor Day (25).

6) Setup some problem-solving scenarios that deal with common playground problems. Example: The girl who wants to play soccer with the boys but is refused, the boy who dislikes being chased by girls, the girl who kicks and screams all the time (26).

7) Make/purchase some visible symbol. . .and award it for the day/week to any student who intervenes when he/she hears a friend putting down the opposite sex (27).

Comparisons of Traditional Social Customs and Gender Equity

In this curriculum model, designed for vocational students, teachers define social customs by explaining to students that traditional etiquette is acceptable unless it degrades someone as a person or as a male or female. The lesson states, "In today's society, men and women are questioning practices in which protocol for accepted behavior is no longer appropriate. One must be alert to such practices and act in a manner which neither offends nor degrades anyone," (28). One example given: the father [giving] the bride to the groom as in property," (29).

According to this curriculum guide, if a student is offended by a particular social custom, the offended should deal with the offender as follows: "When one is discriminated against, degraded or placed in a disadvantageous position, a private confrontation may be necessary. . . One should use I-messages in stating the problem in a non-threatening, calm manner, avoid accusation and use conflict resolution skills," (30).

In another segment of this curriculum, students are asked to review traditional social customs or etiquette in order to discover and root out gender inequity. They are taught to perform this task in several ways. The first recommended method is role playing. Students pair up by drawing cards -- so as not to be paired inequitably by a sex-biased instructor. Each pair is given a case study to "role play" and allotted 30 seconds to demonstrate the behavior of the case study both equitably and courteously, (31). A few examples of these case studies:

1) A male and female are introduced to each other (32).

2) A man and woman enter a meeting room and only one seat is vacant (33). Perhaps the proper non-sexist behavior would be to play rock, scissors, paper or flip a coin for the chair.

3) A church social committee assigns persons to prepare food and to set up tables and chairs. Both men and women attend the church socials (34).

4) A grandparent is asked to plan summer activities for a visiting granddaughter and grandson. Summer camp choices are limited to basketball and ballet (35). One wonders what this has to do with etiquette.

Another "equity exercise" recommended to teachers is to show the class a video on manners or social etiquette. Then ask students to identify any stereotyping or gender inequity portrayed (i.e. a man treating a woman as unequal under the guise of being "courtly"). After the video, the "lecturette" is instructed to make a presentation on manners and the purpose of etiquette in contemporary culture. This "lecturette" is to ask students the following questions (36):

1) Why are manners and etiquette important (37)?

2) Are traditional etiquette rules still appropriate in today's liberated society (38)?

3) How does one react to discriminatory behavior without being rude or offensive (39)?

4) How does one recognize stereotyping and gender bias in traditional socially acceptable situation (40)?

After discussing how obvious sexist etiquette is, students are given a worksheet and an "etiquette reference," then asked to determine what the traditional (as opposed to appropriate) male and female behaviors would be for each of the social settings. After discovering the custom, they are to analyze each situation and determine if it is sexist. finally, they must justify their answer (41). Some of the questions are:

Who pays for dinner (42)?

Who gives the order to waiter/waitress (43)?

Who should be seated first (44)?

Are these practices discriminatory (45)?

Who opens the door when entering or leaving a room (46)?

Who leads and who follows when going up or down stairs (47)?

Are these practices discriminatory (48)?

In a wedding, what images of males and females are projected in the clothing attire (49)?

Are the roles of the bride and groom during the wedding ceremony the same or different (50)?

Are these practices discriminatory (51)?

It is hard to imagine how such lessons will help students in vocational training programs learn a skill or find a job. These are young people who are not expected to attend college. Most educators would agree that such students need to learn basic vocational skills and also basic knowledge and competency in core academic subjects. They should also learn how to find and hold a job. Instead, their time is wasted learning the politically correct attitudes toward "sexism." The etiquette lesson is only one of multiple lessons on gender bias for these students.

Cinderella

If you thought the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories was funny, you may just she tears over the following, which is not satire but a dead-serious classroom exercise.

Students are provided with a copy of the fairy tale Cinderella to analyze the "relationships between human behaviors and gender identity." In order to do this, they must identify stereotypical behaviors by the characters and discuss their effect on gender identity (52).

Then they are told to rewrite Cinderella in a way that will "reflect gender equity, eliminate stereotyping gender bias, yet allow the characters to maintain their gender identities," (53) Should Cinderella pursue the Prince? Should she have worn combat boots instead of glass slippers? Should she lead when she dances with the Prince at the ball?

Sex Equity Handbook for Schools by Myra and David Sadker.

This is an entire book devoted to the principles behind sex equity, with sample lessons for teachers for use in the classroom. As an example of the book's point of view and methodology, consider one exercise intended for grades 3-7. The authors claim this exercise teaches young children the following: how to use data-collecting skills, how to use writing skills, and how to decrease sex stereotyping. they also claim it is useful in the teaching of math and language arts (54).

In this exercise, the class is divided into six groups. Each group is assigned a given number of pages from their standard math book. The groups are told to record each story problem, within the pages assigned, and look for stories that portray only males, only females, or both males and females. Then the students are told to list the activity of each story problem (55).

The next day, the students are told to exchange data and determine whether or not each category (only male, only female, and both) has about the same number of story problems as the others. After discussing whether or not the numbers are equal, the Sadkers suggest that the teacher emphasize that "both males and females take mathematics and must make use of mathematics skills in their daily lives. Therefore a balance should be reflected in the textbook (56).

Next, students are told to look at the types of activities for the three groups. they are to determine whether or not the activities are different for males and females. The teacher is then instructed to point out to the students that "both males and females con do most activities and therefore, a balance should be reflected in the text," (57).

One day three of this lesson, the teacher is instructed to discuss rewriting the activities in the story problems so there is a balance between the kinds of activities the males and females undertake. The teacher then gives the student an example of how this can be done (i.e. by changing the male name to a female name or changing 'buying lunches' to 'buying tools'). The students are then to write their math story problems to reflect gender equity in both numbers and activities (58).

On the last day of this exercise, the students read their own newly-purified stories out loud. Henceforth these politically correct versions are to be used in math exercises (59).

So how widespread is this self-righteous trifling with our public school curricula? Increasingly, "gender equity" approaches are being introduced into every nook and cranny of our educational system. An an example, consider California's guidelines for review of textbooks (60):

1) Illustrations must contain approximately equal proportions of men and women

2) In the representation of each profession, including parent, men, and women, must be shown in equal numbers

3) The contributions of men and women to developments in history or achievements in art or science must appear in equal numbers

4) Mentally and physically active, creative, problem-solving roles, and success or failure in these roles, must be divided evenly between males and females

5) The number of traditional and nontraditional activities engaged in by characters of both sexes must be approximately even

6) The gamut of emotions must occur randomly among characters, regardless of gender

7) Both sexes must be portrayed in nurturing roles with their families

And another point. Political correctness is the rule by which the system measures as acceptable;e teacher as well as an acceptable textbook. Teachers, like texts, must use "gender inclusive language" or risk dire consequences. Teachers are ordered to heed a given speech code which lists words that must be avoided, lest they fail to advance gender equity. These include "weatherman, which should be "weather reporter," and "sportsman" which should be "sports enthusiast." Some are even more bizarre. For example, the word "manhole" is gender insensitive, so the suggested substitute phrase is "utility/access cover." "Maiden name" is also wicked and must be replaces with "birth name." On the other hand, 'Mother nature" and "Father time" must become simply nature and time. The list bans numerous words that occur in everyday usage because they are deemed sexist by the gender equity police (61).

In the book Toward Gender Equity in the Classroom, we're given a portrait of the model teacher who shows commitment to gender equity. Karen, who teaches kindergarten, is a perfect Little Goody Two-Shoes of gender equity. She is described as follows:

"Her reading method is to read the book as it is written, with the gender of the main character unaltered. She then reads the story with the character as the other gender," (62).

"[S]he is careful to use non-biased language. 'He or she' is used in place of a generic 'he.' She also has made a point to erase from her vocabulary 'guys' as a generic term." (63).

Karen believes that "inherent in her role as a teacher, particularly in the culturally heterogeneous school in which she works is the job of drawing her students attention to bias and intolerance," (64).

She is also careful about gender inclusion in organization. She is concerned that when left to decide themselves, her classes will generally make their social groups along gender lines. Thus she chooses to group them in completely unbiased ways (e.g., jackets with zippers versus jackets with buttons) (65).

Beth, a middle school teacher is also cited as someone conscientious in her use of non-sexist language (66).

She is quick to correct Maria who alludes to "cavemen." Beth corrected Maria, reminding the student that "cave people" is more inclusive (67).

Completely committed to the idea of gender equity, Beth participates in a program that sets aside time before, during, and after school when only girls participate in forums, discussion groups, and recreational activities.

According to "Toward Gender Equity in the Classroom", this program allows girls to learn about themselves and see that their opportunities are unlimited. "The program also allow[s] for a shift of focus from the traditional celebration of male achievement on the playing field and in the classroom to female issues and achievement," (68).

This is a movement in its infancy. These gender equity advocates are only the first ants foraging for food, The whole nest is on its way. As Women's Studies become more and more a part of the standard college catalogue, feminists will move more and more into kindergarten to 12th grade public education in an effort to promote new and more radical social engineering. Unfortunately, feminists fight for women in a way that not only wastes resources, but in the end, wastes young minds, which can become more preoccupied with self-esteem than knowledge, more interested in propaganda than education.

Also, too often, "gender equity" substitutes mindless bean counting for genuine thought, an approach that results in the loss of valuable classroom time better devoted to legitimate academic subjects. Is it any wonder that American math students finish last in international; testing comparisons?

We may end up the most ignorant and ideological world leader in history-- a nation that knows all the euphemisms to explain away differences between male and female, but has to use its toes to count to twenty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Florida Vision for Gender Equity Programming 5.

2. Florida 5.

3. Florida 5.

4. "Expectations and Aspirations: Gender Roles and Self-Esteem" 4-6.

5. Expectations 4-6.

6. Expectations 6.

7. "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America Executive Summary." (Washington DC: Americans Association of University Women, 1994) 15.

8. Christina Hoff Sommers, "Where the Boys Are," Education Week. 12 June 1996. 52.

9. Shortchanging 14.

10. Shortchanging 14.

11. Shortchanging 14.

12. Christine Skelton, ed. Whatever Happens to Little Women? (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1989) 39.

13. Shortchanging 12.

14. Sue Rosser, "Female Friendly Science Including Women in Curricular Content and Pedagogy in Science," The Journal of General Education (1993); 191-220, rpt (http://www.enc.org/online/ENC2289/2289.html): 1

15. Rosser 2.

16. Rosser 2.

17. Rosser 8.

18. Rosser 12.

19. Rosser 11

20. Rosser11

21. Michigan Department of Education Office for Sex Equity. Threescore and Five: A Booklet of Gender Equity Ideas for Elementary Teachers (August 1990): 3.

22. Michigan 1.

23. Michigan 3.

24. Michigan 3.

25. Michigan 4.

26. Michigan 6.

27. Michigan 7

28. Emma Reeves Schools Achieving Gender Equity (Washington DC: US Department of Education, 1995) 81.

29. Reeves 81.

30. Reeves 81.

31. Reeves 82.

32. Reeves 82.

33. Reeves 82.

34. Reeves 82.

35. Reeves 82.

36. Reeves 80.

37. Reeves 80.

38. Reeves 80.

39. Reeves 80.

40. Reeves 80.

41 Reeves 71.

42. Reeves 71.

43. Reeves 77.

44. Reeves 77.

45. Reeves 77.

46. Reeves 78

47. Reeves 78.

48. Reeves 78

49. Reeves 78.

50. Reeves 78.

51. Reeves 78.

52. Reeves 112.

53. Reeves 112.

54. David Sadker and Myra Sadker Sex Equity Handbook for Schools (New York: Longman, 1982) 150.

55. Sadkers Handbook 151.

56. Sadkers Handbook 152.

57. Sadkers Handbook 152.

58. Sadkers Handbook 152.

59. Sadkers Handbook 153.

60. Paris Finley Gender Wars at John Adams High School (Fairbanks: University of Alaska, 1900) 45.

61. Gender Balanced Training Module (Richmond: Virginia Education Association) Handout.

62. Janice Streitmatter, "Towards Gender Equity in the Classroom" (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994) 106.

63. Streitmatter 106.

64. Streitmatter 107.

65. Streitmatter 107.

66. Streitmatter 116.

67. Streitmatter 117.

68. Streitmatter 120.

Related Subjects:

Feminism