Even without the help of a time warp, are we all involved in repetitive routines? Speaking mostly about myself, I seem to have been in routine most of my life, as the examples below suggest.

Towards the middle of Groundhog Day, a scene in a bar suggests that the film is not just science fiction. Phil describes his situation to two local men sitting
next to him along the bar:

Phil: What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and
everyday was exactly the same, and nothing you did mattered?
Ralph: That about sums it up for me.

Like me, Ralph is not subject to a time warp, but he seems stuck in routines.

There are many moments in other kinds of popular culture that suggest being stuck in routines. One of my favorites is a pop song from the 40’s, when I must have had the radio on all day and into the night:

If I love again, though it’s someone new.
If I love again, it will still be you.

I thought of this song when I read the headlines about Paul McCartney’s divorce from his second wife. Certain elements in the story suggest that the main reason he married her was that she reminded him of his first wife.
The idea of routines also occurs in literature and poetry. One example is the magnificent last line from Dylan Thomas’s poem about the death of a child in the WWII bombing of London (1957):

After the first death, there is no other.

He seems to be alluding to the idea that since we usually are unable to complete the mourning of the first death that is important to us, we are compelled to repeat it with each subsequent one. Perhaps it’s different for the reader, but I often feel like Ralph in Groundhog Day. There have been, and still are, many routines in my life that seem to be
repetitive and virtually unchanging. Without going into great detail, much of my eating, sleeping, working, quarreling, and indeed, thinking and feeling, are mostly routine.

Escape from Routine

Not that all routines are bad. We need routines to live, else we would drown in details. But the question arises, who is master, me or routine? Probably the latter, because when I escape routine, it is almost always an accident. Here are
two examples of accidental escape, the first from my own life. My wife Suzanne and I made a trip to a conference in Atlanta in August 2003. Since my routine for most of my career has been to fly to conferences, I assumed that we would make a roundtrip flight. Since Suzanne had never been in the South, she wanted to drive both ways. We compromised by flying there, but returning in a rental car. We stayed only two days at the conference, then
drove back in 6 days. The South that we drove thru was hot as Hades, but we had one helluva good time.

Until this event, we both had the conceit that we talk frequently, often at length, and on occasion, in depth. Of course, we are one or both of us often out of the house. Still we thought that at least at home, we were  communicating. In Atlanta, our communication didn’t change because we both busy with the conference. The change in routine occurred during the drive back to California, when we were together all the time, with no escape, for six days. Since it would have been difficult, if not impossible to do anything else, we talked.

Much of the first day was spent by my complaints. Why were we doing this? Why had I allowed myself to be roped in, etc. Late in the day, however, I said “At least I am out of my usual routine.” We both laughed. Since Suzanne is a grief counselor at the local Hospice, she talks a lot about death. So I asked her what was for me an unusual question: how would you feel if I were to die? At first she spoke about what she would do, her actions. When I repeated the question, she talked at some length about her feelings. She asked me the same question about my feelings in the case of her death. Then we spoke about asking our children a similar question. (As it turned out, the
question didn’t work with them). But it worked with us. We were off to the races.

That was the beginning of a five-day torrent of conversation, as if the floodgates had burst. We talked, laughed, and cried our way virtually non-stop thru Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern
California. After this experience, we realized that we have so many routines in our everyday life that we rarely talk about anything but our immediate business. There is work outside and at home, food preparation, repairs, garden, cleaning, etc. There are also many other routines. We had the practice, for example of watching TV or DVDs together from 8pm to our usual bedtime, 10pm. This two-hour period is never devoid of talk, but only pedestrian talk. We complain about the waste of time, but often one or both of us is so pooped that TV is all we can manage. The experience of the long drive had accidentally broken our communication routines.

Once home, we vowed never again to lapse back. We agreed that if necessary, we would just drive in circles around Santa Barbara for at least one weekend a month. Nevertheless, there were too many pulls from our old routines. Within two or three weeks, we were back in to our old shallow talk routine, and continue with it today. (But we haven’t given up, since we are planning 12 days of driving and railroading across Canada).

Emmy Rainwater led me to a somewhat parallel story from her life (Rainwater 2000). A single mother, she describes an accidental breaking of talk routines with her teenage son. When her best friend died unexpectedly, she vowed a
three-day period of silence to honor her friend. She told her son that he could talk to her as much as he wished, but during the three days she wouldn’t reply.

To her surprise, the son, usually laconic, talked her head off. He told her about his thoughts, feeling, hopes and dreams, indeed, the very kinds of things that she had always wanted to know. However, because he always replied with an argument or with silence, she had given up. One can surmise that before the three-day silence, they were deeply enmeshed in routines in which the mom did most of the talking, and/or was directive, distracted or critical.

Intentional Breaks from Routine

To find breaks from routine that were not completely accidental, I have had to search my memory many years back. One occurred that changed my routine suppression of fear during the period when I protesting the Vietnam War. Since I usually didn’t feel fear at all, I was somewhat reckless. Being also the chair of my university department at the time, these activities attracted the attention of the media. For that reason I drew considerable criticism, both from other professors and from members of the public. The idea then was that professors are allowed free speech, but administrators, even temporary ones like chairpersons, are not.

I was awakened by a phone call early in the morning of a speech I was to make to a very large meeting protesting the Cambodian incursion. The caller refused to identify himself, threatening to kill me and my family for “stirring the
students up.” I tried to keep him on the line, reasoning with him, but he was suspicious and hung up after some fifteen minutes of relentless threats. Rather than being upset, I felt blank. I knew I would be unable to speak
effectively unless I snapped out of it. Having just joined a self-help psychotherapy group, I used one of their devices. I guessed that it might be fear causing my blankness, so I said to myself “I am afraid,” a sentence that I had
neither said nor thought in perhaps 25 years. Nothing happened at first, so I kept repeating that line.
After many repetitions, my body went into what might be described as a seizure of fear. Falling to the floor, I involuntarily shook and sweated in what felt like a hurricane of emotion. It was quite enjoyable, like a roller coaster ride, even though there were no accompanying thoughts. After some fifteen minutes of a tremor and sweat bath, my body stopped of its own accord. I was no longer blank. In fact, my mind was clear to the point that I gave a poetic speech without notes. This incident involved a break out of my routine suppression of fear, the kind of suppression that most men do for all their lives (This and other examples of catharsis are described in Scheff 1979).

A second incident that was not quite accidental occurred a week after, showing me a way to deal with anger without shouting, my usual routine. On a flight from the local airport, I chanced to be sitting next to a colleague from another department in my university. I had always been intimidated by this man because of his sharp tongue. However, I was still in a good mood from the incident above, so I tried to tell him about it. He didn’t allow me to finish my story, interrupting me with an “objective” analysis of what happened to me. In the language my students use, he was “psychoanalyzing” me. But I in turn didn’t let him finish. Without thinking about what I was going to say, and without raising my voice, I interrupted him after only a few sentences: “David ______, you are trying to reduce my experience to an abstraction with no remainder. I won’t have it.” To my surprise, he began to apologize, and continued for the rest of the flight. He even related an incident similar to mine from his own life. From this confrontation, I learned how I might make inroads into my routine acting out of anger, but I still haven’t stopped it completely.

I say that these two incidents are not completely accidental, but I should also add that they are not completely intended either. I hardly understood what I was doing in both cases: my liberating responses were more like shots in the dark that turned out well. What about you, the reader? What are your major routines? Have you ever escaped intentionally, or by accident?  I would like to know your stories.

References

Rainwater, Emmy. Mothers of Sons: An Unusual Lesson in Listening; Christian Science Monitor, 2000.

Scheff, Thomas J. 1979. Catharsis in Healing, Ritual, and Drama. University of California Press (Reissued by iUniverse 2001).

Thomas, Dylan. 1957. Collected Poems of Dylan Thomas. New York: New Directions 1881 Routines July 26 06

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Why?

Well, because gender based exclusion, one sex only activity, is quite literally the root of all female (and male) oppression in this world.  We’ll stop short of saying it is the root of all evil because as we all know, the root of all evil is love of money. But it is definitely the root of all gender based oppression.

Now we know that’s a pretty bold statement, but bare with us for a moment. We all know that women are not treated equally in this world right? That’s the reality! Women perform 60% of work world wide, they earn 10% of income, and own 10% of the land (Eitzen and Baca-Zinn, 2003:243).  Women are segregated into pink collar occupations, enjoy less financial stability, lower rates of pay, and are generally expected to sacrifice their career paths to raise the family while their men get ahead. Women are generally left at home to raise the children (an incredibly difficult and demanding job) with minimal help from their spouses and ironically, this is true even in relationships where the male and female are overtly egalitarian. You can go into a marriage with very high ideals but when the babies come, traditional scripts tend to come into play and it is the women who are the ones who bear the primary responsibility. Of course, take five or six or ten years off your career path to raise children and what do you get? Less raises and fewer promotions! It is a sacrifice that we have to make when we raise children, but it’s almost always the woman who makes that sacrifice.  Ironically, this sacrifice can come back and slap ya in the face when the kids grow up, the marriage breaks up, and the female who made the career sacrifice is left with nothing but the pink collar ghetto. As a result of the “sacrifices” they make, women experience higher rates of depression, poverty, and social stigma. And not only that, women and girls are victims of spousal abuse and sexual violence far more often than men. Globally, around the world, women are oppressed and there is no denying that. If you were born female, you are born with a social and economic handicap that is going to make your life a lot harder than it needs to be if genders were treated equally.

And why is this?

Well, there are a lot of reasons why it happens but if you ask us it all comes down to the fact that we (and by “we” we mean the people of this earth) have convinced ourselves that boys and girls are significantly different on an emotional, intellectual, even spiritual bases. Boys are like this, girls are like that. Boys play with trains, girls play with dolls. Boys are the breadwinners, girls are the nurturers. Boys are stronger, girls are weaker.  If you think about it long enough you’ll probably come up with a hundred oppositional differences between boys and girls.

And how is this related to gender oppression?

Well think about it for a moment. When you believe that there are significant differences between boys and girls, men and women, you have a ready made JUSTIFICATION for just about any gender based inequality, exclusion, or oppression that you might want to think of.

Why do women (why should they) stay home and look after the babies?

Because girls are different!

They are the ones who nurture.

Why can’t girls be doctors?

Because boys are different!

They are smarter and more capable.

Why don’t men participate more in cooking?

Because men are different.

They like mechanical things while girls like to bake.

Why don’t women get paid as much as men?

Because they are different.

They aren’t as motivated or committed as men are.

Why don’t women get promoted as fast?

Because they are different.

Why can’t women be priests in the catholic church?

Because they are different.

You get the picture?

In order to justify and support gender inequality and oppression all you have to do is invoke gender difference. It is that way because boys are girls are different.

Of course at this point some of you will be thinking, well the genders are different. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Girls are emotional, irrational, weak. Boys are tough, strong, achievers. Girls like dolls, boys like cars (though tell that to Danica Patrick). Girls are like this, boys are like that. Honestly though, all that’s a load of pseudo-scientific horseshit. There’s really no “scientific” basis to suggest that boys are all that much different than girls. For one, the scientific academy has a huge gender bias that makes any scientific defense of gender differences useless and indefensible. And you can’t argue this. When I did my psychology undergraduate degree twenty years ago, we knew there was a bad gender bias in psychology and psychologists knew they had to do something about it. Sad thing is, they didn’t! In fact after twenty or thirty years of awareness, the gender bias is still there. As much as they may not like to hear it, psychologist are still referencing reality on the basis of their gender perceptions and worse still, they are justifying their bias. In the article linked above the psychologist actually defends scientific methodology suggesting that when it comes to identifying gender bias, science works. But clearly it does not. If scientific methodology has been unable to make much progress against gender bias in research over the last thirty years, if gender bias still exists, how can anybody make a claim that science works or can provide us with valid knowledge about gender.  The conclusions are methodologically straight forward. If there is a systematic bias in the research on gender, the research on gender is not valid. And if after thirty years the bias is still there, then it may certainly be fair to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we approach gender in science. Certainly it is more reasonable to suggest that than to say, despite the presence of bias, “it’s working.”

Gender similarity, not difference

A second reason that you can’t really believe science when it comes to gender is the bell curve, or rather our misuse of the bell curve. As you all know, the bell curve is a graphed distribution of “characteristics.” You can put anything you want on a bell curve from height and weight to IQ to hair color. When you do that, or rather when you put the sampling means on a graph, you often get what a statistician calls a “normal” distribution. This normal distribution shows the purported distribution of characteristics in a population.

Now, there’s a lot of problems when it comes to using the normal distribution to describe human characteristics but putting those aside for now, what we notice when we graph male and female characteristics on a bell curve is not difference but similarity. You can look at the example graph in this article showing the height and weight of humans differentiated by gender and ask yourself, what do you see.  Do you see the little bit of difference in the tails of the distribution, bend to the statistical indoctrination, and tell yourself the difference is highly significant, or do you look at the amazing overlap? In my view, when you consider the height and weight of male and female what is most striking are the similarities. That is, we are more alike than we are different. Yet if you were a psychologist, or a pop culture pundit, or a chauvinistic male, you might highlight the difference (perhaps because talking about difference makes it look like you’ve actually discovered something) without ever commenting on the similarity. It is a bit odd when you think about it. While it is true there may be difference in the extremes in abilities, sometimes, really what is so remarkable about the genders is their similarities. The truth is, male or female, we all have two arms, two legs, two eyes, an identical looking brain, an intellect, emotions, feelings, and all the things that make us human. We would argue that it is not our differences that are important (though admittedly they can be a lot of fun), it is our similarities and these similarities far outweigh any superficial sexual characteristics that might differentiate us.

Of course, the pseudo-scientific clap trap about gender differences, or the fact that we all chose to focus on difference rather than similarity, isn’t the main point here. The main point is that once you do that, once you allow for the idea that men and women are significantly different (even though it’s their similarities that are arguably more remarkable) then you have created the necessary ideological support (i.e. the rationalization and justification) for gender oppression on this planet. You buy into that dichotomy, you become the oppressor (even if you are the sex being oppressed).  It really is as simple as that.

And what does this have to do with gendered activity? Well, gendered activity is the prototypical gender oppression. It is the prototypical exclusion upon which all other exclusions are based.  Of course, I understand you might have a hard time swallowing this. I mean, what does a girl’s only baby shower, or a boy’s only hockey club, have to do with the suppression of women on this planet? Well, everything because once you polarize the genders, once you create a distinction, once you allow exclusion and sorting based on difference, then it becomes possible to rank, and sort, and organize and deny and exclude along any other indices you can care to think about. If you say, only girls can play or only boys can play then by default you give legitimacy to the mythology of gender difference.  And if you give legitimacy to the myth of gender difference, then you have provided support for the reality of gender oppression.  Of course, you may not like to hear this. You may be sitting comfortably in a life organized around gender based activities, but that doesn’t change the fact that if that is your life, then you are supporting the gender based oppression of women on this planet, even if you don’t want to. It is exactly like the feminists say, the personal is political.

So what are you going to do about it? Well, if you are a male and you have a wife, or a sister, or a mother, or a daughter, and you are interested in seeing them treated equally in this world, then you have to stop thinking about gender differences, stop supporting gendered activities, and start working towards gender inclusion. If you do anything else you are a part of the problem, and a component of the oppression. If you need help, take a page out of this grade school lesson book on peer exclusion and just say no (http://www.tolerance.org/activity/peer-exclusion)

Problem: Sometimes a group of children won’t let another kid play with them just because of their gender. Gender is whether you are a boy or a girl. Sometimes boys will say that a girl can’t play with them. Sometimes girls will say that boys can’t play with them.

Rationale: This isn’t nice. It is wrong to exclude someone just because they are a boy or a girl, or because of their gender. Not letting someone play with you just because of their gender is called bullying, and bullying is not allowed…

If you are a female and you don’t like the social, political, economic and (even) spiritual inequality that becomes possible when we allow gender difference and gender exclusion, if you don’t like the idea of maybe one day finding yourself on the wrong end of a glass ceiling, submerged in a pink collar ghetto, or crying as your husband of twenty years, whom you sacrificed your entire life and career for, leaves you to go hang with a younger female because “that’s what men do,” then take a page out of the same grade school lesson book on peer exclusion and just say no. You can’t say “you can’t play just because you’re a boy.”

And just to be clear, just because you are female doesn’t give you free pass. You don’t get to engage gender inclusions and then complain about the sorry state of this world, or your life, or your daughter’s awful marriage to that “typical male,” down the road. The personal is political and change starts with you.

Oh an incidentally, everything we’ve said here about gender difference and exclusion applies equally well to ageism, racism, or any of the other exclusions, based on difference, that make the inequality of this world go around. As long as we keep thinking of ourselves as different and not as a unified human race, as long as we hang onto our “we and they” mentality (however we choose to spin that), we create the wedge that allows the inequality that causes the suffering that ruins the lives of the vast majority of people on this earth.

References

Eitzen, D. Stanley and Maxine Baca-Zinn. 2003 Social Problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Additional Reading

http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/problems/chap-09.htm

http://www.tolerance.org/activity/peer-exclusion

http://personalispolitical.tripod.com/

Related posts:

1. Care Bears vs. Transformers: Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

These books are both different. You may be surprised to learn that neither of the books require (or even advise) total abstinence from alcohol, and both strip out the heavy duty demonization and moralization that often goes a long with this disease (like you are someone weak and deficient because you are an alcoholic). Instead they advise, in an open and sensible manner free of the prohibition like frenzy that often surrounds this social problem, change in diet, lifestyle, and attention to whatever social or emotional pathologies may encourage addictive behavior. Recognizing that alcohol, like other addictive substances, provides an endorphin rush (i.e. they make your brain feel good), the books develop treatment strategies that deal with that. Treatment  involves a pharmacological intervention that interferes with the uptake of endorphins in the brain (thus robbing you of the feel good properties of alcohol) and dramatically reducing craving over time. The book authors claim success rates as high as 80% which is incredible considering how difficult addictions are to treat. I haven’t seen these treatments in action yet, though I do have a client who I’m hoping will try them out. They do, however, seem highly promising, and they are backed by serious scientific research.

Now as a sociologist I usually don’t buy into biological or genetic explanations of anything.  For me traditional psychology has too narrow a focus and it misses a lot of key causal factors when it approaches psychological dysfunction. I understand the power that advertising, the media, and our social groups have to determine our behavior and personality so from my sociologically sophisticated perspective, even something as “genetic” as IQ isn’t really genetic at all, but social. Still, what I found most interesting about the books from a sociological point of view was the emphasis on the relationship between alcohol and endorphins, a biological process.  Endorphins of course are the natural “feel good” drugs in your brain. Similar to morphine, the body releases endorphins in responses to both positive and negative stimuli.  Stress and pain cause endorphin release, but also laughter and orgasm. In addition, long distance running has long been associated with endorphin release (the so called “runner’s high”). Endorphins are the body’s “feel good” system and lack of endorphins may lead to depression. Drinking alcohol is a way to encourage endorphin release in the brain.

But why do you need alcohol to encourage endorphin release if it is released by other activities?

Well, probably because you don’t feel good about things. I have a client, an alcoholic, who is embedded in an extremely toxic family environment. His wife yells and screams and judges, his children are dealing with the effects of long term psychological, emotional, and physical abuse, he is struggling in his business, and he turns to alcohol to help him cope–and we can see why that would work.  Because of the stressful environment he lives in, his body is not releasing enough endorphins to keep him feeling good and so he is encouraging additional release through the abuse of alcohol. It’s a bad habit to get into of course because once your brain builds the chemical association between endorphin release and a shot of the Knob Creek, the addiction is extremely hard to break. Of course, nobody can survive when they are made to feel like dirt all the time.

So what are you going to do about this? Well, if there is an addiction present the implications are clear, you have to break the chemical association and change your environment so your body is not so overwhelmed that it needs additional medication. We now know how to break the chemical association in the brain (both books reviewed here provide a solution). The harder part is cleaning up our social environments; but at least now you know where to start looking.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Gender Socialization

When children view advertisements, what are the images that they are exposed to?  The majority of the time children see stereotypical representations.  Girls are presented in traditional roles such as playing house and cooking.  Girls are also shown playing with dolls and being concerned with being popular and beautiful.  Girls are also portrayed as being  cooperative and more passive and less aggressive and competitive than boys.   Boys on the other hand are shown seeking power, speed and physical action.   Aggressive behavior is almost exclusively limited to advertisements targeting boys.  Boys are also shown as being more independent than girls.

One needs to look no further than the advertisements during Saturday morning cartoons to find evidence of these stereotypes.  Commercial after commercial shows girls playing with dolls or makeup and boys playing sports, racing cars or battling action figures.  Among the more popular toys for girls are Barbie dolls, Bratz dolls, stuffed pets to care for and make up.  The girls in these advertisements are seldom pictured away from their homes, instead they are contently playing inside in their bedrooms or in their on backyards.  The boys in the advertisements are allowed more freedom to roam the world.  They are more mobile and active.  The popular toys for boys involve more action.  They actively battle each other through play with sports, transformers or Star Wars action figures.  It is important to note that a clear distinction between a doll and an action figure has been created.  Although an action figure would seem to resemble a doll, it has carefully been defined as a toy suitable for a boy to play with.  Because of gender stereotypes, it is unacceptable for boys to play with dolls, but perfectly fine for them to play with action figures.  The emphasis being on action rather than the caring and nurturing associated with dolls.

An episode of the popular television show Friends illustrates the gender stereotype surrounding dolls.  One of the male characters, Ross, had recently become a father.  He was divorced from his wife, who had taken a lesbian lover.  During one of the episodes, Ross’ ex-wife dropped the baby off for him to spend some time with. Much to his dismay his son was hugging a Barbie doll.  The rest of the episode centered around his efforts to interest his son in GI Joe instead of the Barbie doll which is stereotypically associated with girls.  The GI Joe doll is stereotypically associated with boys, because he is an “action figure”.  When confronted by another character that GI Joe is a doll, Ross quickly counters that he isn’t a doll he is an action figure.  Thus, somehow making him more appropriate for boys.  This example illustrates the stereotypes surrounding dolls.  Girls play with dolls and boys play with action figures.  By calling the doll an action figure it makes is an appropriate boy toy, because of the emphasis on action.  This example also illustrates the influence of parents in reinforcing gender stereotypes.  Apparently Ross’ son was young enough not to be aware of gender differences and was willing to play with anything.  Ross, however, was uncomfortable with his son playing with a Barbie and reverted to gender stereotypes by encouraging the boy to play with an action figure instead.  Another thing that this example shows is that television programs as well as advertising can be influential in perpetuating traditional gender stereotypes.

A study by Browne (1998) provides further evidence of the substantial gender stereotyping that is found in advertisements.  According to Browne,

Boys appeared in greater numbers, assumed more dominant roles, and were more active and aggressive than girls. (p. 12)  In commercials containing both boys and girls, boys were significantly more likely to demonstrate and/or explain the product even when the product used was not sex-typed.  Girls were never shown using products designed for boys (e.g., guns or trucks), and no commercials showed boys using products targeted for girls (p. 6-7).  Gender role reinforcement was observed at the level of body language and facial expression; girls were portrayed as shyer, giggly, unlikely to assert control, and less instrumental (p.12).

A print advertisement for a play castle exemplifies the type of gender stereotyping researchers have found in advertisements.  In the two page advertisement a boy and girl are playing with the pop up castle.  The boy is shown standing inside the castle looking out while the girl is depicted as cowering outside the gate of the castle as if in fear of something unseen.  The boy seems to possess the power as he looks down on the girl.  This advertisement further perpetuates gender stereotypes by containing a picture of a pink castle in the right hand corner of the advertisement.  Apparently, the gray castle is intended for boys and a pink one is available for girls.  The use of color to indicate the appropriateness of a toy for a girl or boy is found in many advertisements.  Another example of this is Leap Pad, a popular learning toy.  The original Leap Pad was blue and green.  However, last Christmas a pink Leap Pad appeared in ads and on the shelves of stores.  Because of gender stereotypes, the pink Leap Pad rather than the blue one was intended for use by girls.

At this point some of you may be saying so what.  What’s the big deal if a toy is blue or pink or if it’s a doll or an action figure?  Isn’t it just advertising trying to sell a product?  The problem is that within these messages of consumption are lessons about gender roles and expectations.   These advertisements specifically target children with a message of what is and isn’t appropriate for boys and girls.  Although these may be “just advertisements” they are also one of the places that children learn about gender roles.

According to Bandura’s social learning theory, children formulate gender role concepts through observations as well as through rewards and punishment (Bandura, 1969).   As the definition of social learning has expanded , the focus has included both imitation of others and expectancies of reinforcement for that imitative behavior (Rotter, 1982). The media have become a focus of study related to social learning, because the most readily available sources of models for children to emulate aside from their parents are movies, books and especially television (Mayes & Valentine, 1979).  Considering the number of hours of television that children watch, their exposure to televised models through programs and advertisements may even be greater than their exposure to their own parents’ behaviors (Bandura, 1969).

It could be argued that children learn all sorts of behaviors from television that either sex could perform.  However, research has indicated that children tend to imitate same-sex models with greater frequency than opposite-sex models (Courtney & Whipple, 1983).   According to Smith (1994), “one argument for this occurrence is that peers and parents are more likely to reward children when they imitate same-sex models.  Children also generally recall more about same-sex models than opposite sex models.  This sex bias is especially true of boys and also especially pronounced when male models behave in sex-stereotyped ways (p.324).

The concern that behaviors observed and internalized from television advertisements may have considerable influence in shaping gender role concepts of young children is reflected in the number of studies in this area (Kolbe & Muehling, 1995; Smith, 1994).  Expectations of sex roles and self-labeling processes have the potential to influence many aspects of a child’s life from social interaction to occupational plans, and even to cognitive functioning (Macklin & Kolbe, 1984).  Basically, children’s social learning from television advertisements result in the advertisements showing children how they should behave.  As has been discussed, the behavior taught by these advertisements to children is stereotypical gender roles and behavior.  This is important because many gender role development theorists believe that despite intervention from influential adults like parents and teachers, children often remain very specific in their judgments about the gender appropriateness of behaviors, occupations and play objects (Katz, 1979; Bettelheim, 1987).  For example, several studies have demonstrated that heavy viewers of television hold more traditional gender-stereotyped notions of proper role behavior than light viewers of television (Signorelli, 1989; Signorelli & Lears, 1991).

In terms of the social learning theory, girls continue to see models of domesticity.  Limitations for girls’ behavior as well as boys’ behavior exist in television commercials.  It is often easy to point out the limitations for girls’ behavior, and this has received a lot of research attention.  However, it must be remembered that boys are also limited in their behavior by gender role stereotypes.  For example, advertisements often show boys as aggressive, physically active, and needing to win rather than nurturing or sharing.

In fact Larson (2001) has found an increase in the occurrence of violence and aggression in the commercials.  According to Larson, more then 34% of the commercials featuring children and targeting young children included aggression (p.9).  He compares his findings to the 12.5% found by Macklin and Kolbe in 1984 and argues that there has been a nearly three-fold increase in less than 15 years (p. 9).

Klinger, Hamilton and Cantrell (2001) have recently studied the relationship between children and violence and/or aggression in toy commercials.  The commercials in their study were rated as demonstrating stereotypic sex-role behavior.  Male-focused commercials and imagined toy play with the boy-toys were rated as more aggressive than were female-focused and neutral commercials, and their respective toys.  Based on their research Klinger, Hamilton and Cantrell suggest that boys are particular targets of aggressive content in marketing and more desensitized to aggressive content than are girls.  According to Deborah Tannen (1990), aggressive behavior is stereotypically associated with males.  Therefore, by depicting aggressive boys but not girls these advertisements are reinforcing gender stereotypes.  Klinger, Hamilton and Cantrell cautioned that since children’s programming is saturated with toy commercials, young viewers are at best reinforced by stereotypic sex-role behavior, and at worst, inundated with violent content.

Children do not acknowledge a difference in gender roles and gender appropriateness of toys until they understand the concept of gender constancy.  Gender constancy means that the child is aware that he or she will always be male or female regardless of superficial changes such as haircuts or clothing (Smith, p.325).  The development of this awareness is generally achieved by age seven (Browne, 1998).   Once children have reached the cognitive stage of gender constancy, they become more attentive to same sex models and they are more willing to model the character’s behaviors.  Prior of gender constancy, children do not differentiate the sexes and are more willing to model behavior regardless of the models sex.

Past studies suggest that children as young as four years of age are likely to choose gender-typed toys when they have seen them modeled on television by same-sex children (Ruble, Balaban, and Cooper, 1981).  Hence, most children tend to accept sex stereotypes, identify with the stereotypical role of their gender, and punish other children, especially boys, who exhibit cross-gender behaviors and traits.  This punishment of other children can be especially harsh.  If a boy prefers “girl toys” or exhibits girl behaviors or traits such as being kind and caring, he can expect to be teased and called a sissy or gay.  Girls who prefer to play sports, be active and play with “boy toys” are often times labeled as tom boys or as being butch.  Being labeled as a tom boy may or may not lead to punishment by other children.  When I joined my daughter for lunch at school one day, I noticed that she sat with the boys while most of the girls in the class sat at another table.  The boys told me that my daughter was a tom boy because she liked boy things.  They accepted her as “one of the boys.”   As I have experienced with my daughter, six and seven-year old children are able to identify gender behaviors and traits and quickly label those children who exhibit cross-gender behaviors and traits. As a young child, my daughter didn’t differentiate the sexes, was willing to model behavior regardless of the models sex and developed a preference for “boy toys” and more active play.  As she has begun to understand the concept of gender constancy, she is able to identify gender roles and acknowledge her “deviance” from what is considered gender appropriate by accepting the label of tom boy.

However, research by Kolbe and Muehling (1995) indicates that the evaluation of gender appropriateness can be altered through non-stereotypical advertisements.  They found that, boys who viewed ads with a female actor were more likely to indicate that the toy was appropriate for both genders than boys who saw male actor only ads.  The boys who saw the male actor ads said that the advertised toy would be preferred by boys only.  Girls who say the female actor ads also indicated that the toy was less appropriate for boys only.

This finding is significant because it indicates that males may not respond negatively to female models in advertisements.  Nontraditional presentations appear to have the capability of altering the gender-appropriateness classifications of an advertised product.  Kolbe and Muehling argue that this finding is important from a social influence perspective, because boys who saw counter-stereotyped ads were more likely to indicate that the toy was for both genders than were stereotyped ad treatment males.  Overall, their study suggests that some changes in gender appropriateness are possible, but are limited by the already strongly held beliefs by children about gender and the lack of counter stereotypical advertisements presented on television.

Based on the research, it would seem that gender role portrayals in advertisements continue to be stereotypical.   Although there are more representations of girls in advertisements creating more equity in comparison to boys, these portrayals continue to be largely stereotypical for both the girls and boys.  This is disturbing because, these advertisements have the potential to reinforce for children conventional sex-role definitions, meaning that children may come to believe life is supposed to be like it is portrayed in commercials (Ivy & Backlund, 1994,p.116).  Advertising may also influence how children develop an identity for themselves, relative to their own sex and gender, and how they come to expect certain behavior from men and women (Macklin & Kolbe, 1984).  Another disturbing finding is that change in gender portrayals to less stereotypical ones has been slow to occur in advertisements, yet portrayals of violence and aggression have increased.

It should be kept in mind, that although it has been shown that gender portrayals in advertisements tend to be stereotypical, the presence of advertising is not the problem.  As Smith (1994) notes, advertising brings a wealth of information to children at the same time as it financially supports programming aimed at them (p.335).  Advertising is a part of our culture that will not go away.  Advertising needs to adjust its messages concerning gender roles to reflect a non-stereotypical portrayal.  Just as advertising can teach children stereotypical roles and behavior, it can teach them non-stereotypical roles and behavior.  Advertising and the media can be useful in teaching change and discouraging stereotypes.  Although things have changed, they have not changed that much.  Advertising and the media need to reflect the changes that have occurred and possibly encourage more change by depicting non-stereotypical gender portrayals.

Works Cited

Bandura, A. (1969), The role of modeling processes in personality development. In D.M. Gelfand (Ed), Social Learning in Childhood: Readings in theory and application (p185-196), Belmont, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Bettelheim, B. (1987), The importance of play. The Atlantic, 259 (March), 35-46.

Browne, B.A. (1998), Gender stereotypes in advertising on children’s television in the 1990s: a cross-national analysis.  Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 83-97.

Courtney, A.E.,& Whipple, T.W. (1983), Sex stereotyping in advertising. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ivy, D.K & Backland, P. (1994), Exploring GenderSpeak. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Katz, P.A. (1979), The development of female identity. Sex Roles, 5 (February), 155-178.

Klinger, L., Hamilton, J., & Cantrell, P. (2001), Children’s Perceptions of Aggressive and Gender-Specific Content in Toy Commercials. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 29(1), 11-21.

Kolbe, R.H., & Muehling, D. (1995), Gender roles in children’s advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 17 (1), 49-64.

Larson, M.S. (2001), Interactions, Activities and Gender in Children’s Television Commercials: A Content Analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,  45 (1), 41- 57.

Macklin, M.C., & Kolbe, R.H. (1984), Sex role stereotyping in children’s advertising: Current and Past Trends. Journal of Advertising, 13(2), 34-42.

Ruble, D.N., Balaban, T., & Cooper, J. (1981), Gender constancy and the effects of sex-typed televised toy commercials. Child Development, 52, 667-673.

Smith, L.J. (1994), Content analysis of gender differences in children’s advertising. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38 (3), 323-337.

Tannen, D. (1990), “Gender Differences in Topical Coherence: Creating Involvement in Best Friends’ Talk,”  Discourse Processes, Vol. 13, 1990, pp. 73-90.

Related posts:

1. Gendered Activities, gender difference, gender exclusion

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

.

There are now a range of academic disciplines which have been indelibly marked by — indeed produced by — the interests and actions of the propagandists. The field of Public Relations research, the discipline of marketing, some aspects of Human Resource Management and Management and Business Studies more generally all bear the mark of propaganda victories by their systemic refusal to face their origins in propaganda. nor have sociology, psychology, and political science dealt with their demons over this. It is an incredible victory for great power that there is no institute for the study of propaganda (in its real meaning) anywhere in the world. Those that remain studying propaganda do so almost entirely from within the authorised framework that this happens largely in war. Let us be clear about this. We do mean that most academics have been ‘persuaded’ and have come to see things in terms conducive to great power. (Miller and Dinan, 2004: 180. Italics in original).

So you think that the Nazi’s wrote the book on propaganda do you? You think we live in a functioning democracy? Well, think again. In this book by sociologists David Miller and William Dinan you will discover the truth about public relations, propaganda, and corporate control over the public mind. And I’ll be honest with you, it is not a pretty truth. Did you know, the Nazi’s learned about brainwashing the masses from British and American public relations experts? Did you know, some of this centuries most successful public relations experts where in bed with the most brutal and infamous dictators and “serial human right’s abusers” of all time? Did you know the term public relations is a drop in replacement for the term propaganda and is considered the solution to the elite’s “problem” with democracy? Did you know, Britain’s PR man Max Clifford openly acknowledges he lies on behalf of his political clients? “I’ve been telling lies on behalf of people, businessmen, politicians and countries for 40 years” he says “…All PROs at all levels lie through their teeth.” A Century of Spin provides a fascinating and well researched look into the world of corporate mind control and corporate spin. Beginning at the turn of the century the authors document, in painstaking detail, propaganda victory after victory as the global mind control experts carefully and successfully crafted a mass mind set suitable and accepting of neoliberal market reforms. By engaging in massive (and expensive) brainwashing campaigns (er, sorry, public relations campaigns) and by socializing the world’s most powerful individuals in secret and highly exclusive private clubs and getaways, the PR masters have made the world safe for autocratic control of labor, resource, and economy.

It may not be a pretty or popular argument, especially amongst those working in the corrupted hallways of PR research, and it might be surprising to people who believe their concentrated corporate media is anything other than an extension of ruling class propaganda and control, but if the well documented and candid look at the world of corporate influence and propaganda is accurate as presented by Miller and Dinan, and if functioning democracy is important to you, then it is certainly worth taking a brave and open minded look at.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Socjournal is currently looking for sociologists who are willing to write and/or blog on various topics related to sociology. If you want to participate as a professional researcher and/or columnist, please contact Mike Sosteric (mikes@athabascau.ca).

The Socjournal will also accept one-off papers and reports from sociologists, graduate students, and multi-disciplinary contributors interested in telling the world about their marvelous and uplifting sociological research. Contributions may be of any length and will be characterized primarily by the clarity and precision by which the ideas are presented.

Not wanting to contribute “yet another scholarly journal,” our focus will be primarily on communicating sociology to the world (hence the stipulation that you write with the intent of clear communication). Think of this like the sociological version of Psychology Today, but with a critical and political focus. The SocJournal will provide an exciting opportunity for sociologists to exploit the new communication technologies currently proliferating on the World Wide Web.

If you were an author of the original EJS, or rely on papers published in that journal, no worries. Archives of the original Electronic Journal of Sociology will be made permanently available through this portal.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mike Sosteric

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.