Loss of Power for Girls
There are gender stereotypes all around. Boys are faster than girls, girls are more sensitive than boys, boys should be scientists, and girls should be nurses. I think we can all agree that these are not actually true 100% of the time. The main issue I see with gender inequality is that girls are put into this category of being passive. This is very much seen in elementary schools with teacher behavior and hidden curriculums. Patrick McCormick writes, “ …Far too many of our classroom examples, storybooks, and texts describe a world in which boys and men are bright, curious, brave, inventive, and powerful, but girls and women are silent, passive, and invisible.” (McCormick, 1995) This is the main issue. Femininity is an ideal, but women who want to be powerful and successful women do not fit into this mold.
There are countless examples of stories where girls’ expectations are to be quiet and polite, while boys speak openly. For example, Are Girls Taught to Fail states, “when volunteering information, girls were normally expected to raise their hands and get permission to speak while boys were often allowed to interrupt teachers and other students with unsolicited opinions.” (McCormick, 1995) This shows that girls are treated at an unequal level, and actually reflects the era of women’s suffrage. And since girls have this “passive” role put on them it is very difficult for them to be heard or even speak up for themselves for that matter. Ironically, girls start out elementary school testing higher than boys. But with the hidden curriculums and different teacher behaviors, girls slowly fall under boys’ education status. This lasts all the way through college … “And this gap only deepens as their educations continue, with women doing noticeably worse than men on every graduate- and professional-school aptitude test, including the GRE (for arts and sciences), GMAT (for business), LSAT (for law), and MCAT (for medicine).” (McCormick, 1995)
One of readings written by David Sadkers, points out that teachers and close acquaintances influence a girls educational path very much. If teachers create a positive and reinforcing environment towards a girls education then she will stay active in her academics and fall out of the passive stereotype. However, this is usually not the case simply because a lot of teachers are unaware that they are even being gender biased. Amanda Chapman, author of Gender Bias in Education, wrote her article based on Sadkers book and other writers of the topic.
She uses Sadkers ideas when she says, “Teachers are generally unaware of their own biased teaching behaviors because they are simply teaching how they were taught and the subtle gender inequities found in teaching materials are often overlooked.” (Chapman)
If teachers could become aware of what they are teaching and how they are teaching, they might realize that the biased behavior should discontinue.
I want to use an example from our beloved Clemson University for the push to keep girls academically challenged and interested in sciences and math, stereotypical boy majors. Clemson has a program called the STEM, also known as Science Technology Engineering and Math. Their goal is to expose young girls to these subject areas early enough to where they will be interested in it before its too late. Relating this scenario back to girls’ passive role, Eads says, “They said preconceptions about math and science scare away other women from considering engineering careers.” (Eads, 2016)
Has education become so bad that girls are afraid to study what they want to study? Or how about girls being afraid to speak up for themselves? Hopefully this begins to turn around as more and more women become powerful and successful. And as educators we must be aware of the gender bias idea so we do not rob girls of an equal education.
Chapman, A. (n.d.). Gender Bias in Education. Retrieved May 26, 2016
Eads, M. (2016, February 20). Clemson program shows places for girls in STEM careers. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
McCormick, P. (1995) Are girls taught to fail? U.S. Catholic, 60, (2), 38–42.
