Your writing is so humane and kind. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated it in a time when a lot of us feel very torn in our feelings, and struggle to explain our concerns. All I want is for kids to grow up as I did, with a belief that - modulo biology - anyone can be any way they want.
I just can’t comprehend how so many people are so willingly going back to such regressive, narrow gender roles. It’s as if the “nice” adults have joined with the playground bullies in telling the gender nonconforming boy, “You’re not a real boy.”
This album was also a staple of my childhood, and I can still sing its songs. My pre-Boomer parents were not 100% sure about it (it was a gift from a younger, hipper relative), but they let us listen, just the same. And being raised in the 70's meant there were lots of earth tone and primary color clothes for both girls and boys. I had few, if any, pinks or pastels in my wardrobe, and legos were just legos. I was a tomboy with an older brother and preferred playing with boys to girls for the early part of my childhood. This was considered completely normal and healthy. How sad that my own daughters have to navigate such a changed set of expectations and messages and feel constrained or judged for not always measuring up to the feminine "ideal"!
Love this. Love that album and Atalanta. Tried to talk with my daughter about this when she first came upon this gender ideology cult, but she was already captured. Keep writing and fighting, Lisa. Thank you.
I grew up with Free to be you and me, also. It just makes sense. I don't know how we raise kids to stay sane when people are running around with these stupid regressive stereotypes. I remember the LEGO for girls being rolled out. You could tell it was for girls because...it was pink. That was ridiculous. Assuming girls follow the stereotype and then "reaching them" by reinforcing it? All huge steps backwards. I keep seeing these attempts to be inclusive where instead of freeing people from gender expectations, they just build on them and lock them in more???
I agree 100 percent with your overall point, but I do want to comment on the part where you point out that women are still underrepresented in politics and that girls drop out of sports. I believe that statistics show that in the most egalitarian countries, where men and women have the narrowest pay gaps and the most equal standing legally, women end up choosing to stay at home and work part time more often than in comparably rich but not as egalitarian countries. Women do have different priorities and likes (on average, of course). I don't have the data for this, but I suspect that a lot of girls choose not to continue with sports because their priorities change, and that's ok. I also suspect more men than women enjoy the competitive and often combative and aggressive side of politics. That's where the difficulty arises oftentimes - in the murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes.
It's entirely possible that if we really had equality and choice, and equality of choice, more women would hew to stereotypically feminine pasttimes. But we don't have a way to separate gender roles from biology under we achieve that still-mythical equality. So in the meantime, we can focus on equality of opportunity. I'm writing about this a lot in my book on the ideal of the housewife.
Yes, equality of opportunity is certainly important. And I also wish that we would cultivate a societal acceptance of the differences between men and women, and not rank the qualities associated with the sexes, which would also benefit gender non-confirming people, by the way. Women do tend to want to stay home with the kids more than men, and I suspect it has a lot to do with biology rather than socialization. That work should be seen as much a contribution to society as, say, working in an office. It would be even better if staying at home was remunerated, which would enable parents, regardless of their sex, to decide who stays home with the kids not based on their jobs but based on their desires... But of course that's mythical utopia again, at least for now.
I look forward to reading your next book! "Tomboy" is on its way to me from my local library already.
But if that's the case - some merit in it - then one might argue that many of the social problems we face are due to women falling down on that job. 😉 Or that economic factors have conspired to prevent them from performing it.
Though part of the problem there is a case of supply and demand: the more people available to do a given task, the more competition there is for those jobs and lower wages offered. Might be wise if we paid housewives - at least those with kids - a decent salary, though there's then the problem of ensuring adequate performance and decent quality of the resulting "product" - so to speak. 🙂
But to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone, and relative to your earlier, "murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes", you might be interested in this oldish essay which has helpful population distributions by sex of a composite of personality traits - essentially "gender" in a nutshell:
Of maybe particular relevance to something you had said earlier:
"When social influences are weakened (in more egalitarian societies), the sex-related differences in personality and preferences increase.[h] [i] This suggests that as environmental pressures become relaxed, innate sex-specific preferences surface."
Rather moot, and often a fractious bone of contention, as to how much of those personality and behaviour differences by sex - and their consequential stereotypes - are due to nature and how much to nurture. And how much to individual choice - presumably we are all, more or less, more than just our biology or what our environments have "programmed" us as.
Thanks for the great conversation. Lots of wonderful insights here. I was particularly interested in the discussion on word choice, eg, gender-affirming as euphemistic, mutilation as too harsh the other way, and ending on bilateral mastectomy (factual and neutral). As someone who had the Hobson’s choice of dying of breast cancer v. Bilateral mastectomy (hopefully for many today there are less drastic choices), I do have, ironically, a problem with the neutral term. While I appreciate where Keig is coming from, there’s a complexity to this that I want to point out. To have to have a bilateral mastectomy in order to avoid dying was a terrible choice. It was not staying over in the hospital, or even undergoing the surgery (which is not that tough for most of us), but rather having to mutilate my body to stay alive. As a friend who had to do the same because of cancer said at the time--if we were men, they would come up with something less horrible than this kind of mutilation. So, for me, the neutral term doesn’t get at what the experience is like. Over time, I have of course learned to live with it, but I really don’t want anyone to think this kind of choice was just fine, and mutilation helps convey that. The other aspect of this that I’d note is breast reconstruction is no panacea. First, the way these surgeries were conducted at the time, the basic breast removal offered no pretense of cosmetic look, even flat-chested. Instead, you were set up to either go with crude scars or undergo often several cosmetic operations to end up with fake breasts without sensation and also potentially problems with silicon implants. I had a friend with advanced cancer who went through this, because she couldn’t bear looking unwomanly. Several surgeries later, she had new fake breasts, and shortly afterward, she died. I feel sad and angry for Keig that societal norms made it untenable for Keig to present as a woman safely, but what I would wish for all of us is that bodily mutilation was not seen as the only way to address this. Let’s change the world, not our bodies.
Your writing is so humane and kind. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated it in a time when a lot of us feel very torn in our feelings, and struggle to explain our concerns. All I want is for kids to grow up as I did, with a belief that - modulo biology - anyone can be any way they want.
I agree.
I just can’t comprehend how so many people are so willingly going back to such regressive, narrow gender roles. It’s as if the “nice” adults have joined with the playground bullies in telling the gender nonconforming boy, “You’re not a real boy.”
Well said.
This album was also a staple of my childhood, and I can still sing its songs. My pre-Boomer parents were not 100% sure about it (it was a gift from a younger, hipper relative), but they let us listen, just the same. And being raised in the 70's meant there were lots of earth tone and primary color clothes for both girls and boys. I had few, if any, pinks or pastels in my wardrobe, and legos were just legos. I was a tomboy with an older brother and preferred playing with boys to girls for the early part of my childhood. This was considered completely normal and healthy. How sad that my own daughters have to navigate such a changed set of expectations and messages and feel constrained or judged for not always measuring up to the feminine "ideal"!
Another well written, compassionate commentary. It’s a pep talk for me! The struggle is real. Still fighting the good fight.
Love this. Love that album and Atalanta. Tried to talk with my daughter about this when she first came upon this gender ideology cult, but she was already captured. Keep writing and fighting, Lisa. Thank you.
Brilliant as always
Thank you! Great essay!
I grew up with Free to be you and me, also. It just makes sense. I don't know how we raise kids to stay sane when people are running around with these stupid regressive stereotypes. I remember the LEGO for girls being rolled out. You could tell it was for girls because...it was pink. That was ridiculous. Assuming girls follow the stereotype and then "reaching them" by reinforcing it? All huge steps backwards. I keep seeing these attempts to be inclusive where instead of freeing people from gender expectations, they just build on them and lock them in more???
Just insane.
I agree 100 percent with your overall point, but I do want to comment on the part where you point out that women are still underrepresented in politics and that girls drop out of sports. I believe that statistics show that in the most egalitarian countries, where men and women have the narrowest pay gaps and the most equal standing legally, women end up choosing to stay at home and work part time more often than in comparably rich but not as egalitarian countries. Women do have different priorities and likes (on average, of course). I don't have the data for this, but I suspect that a lot of girls choose not to continue with sports because their priorities change, and that's ok. I also suspect more men than women enjoy the competitive and often combative and aggressive side of politics. That's where the difficulty arises oftentimes - in the murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes.
That could be, but I was thinking of these stats, which don't point to dropping out because of changing interests, but rather changing pressures: https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/do-you-know-the-factors-influencing-girls-participation-in-sports/#:~:text=By%20age%2014%2C%20many%20girls,times%20the%20rate%20of%20boys.&text=Through%20more%20than%2025%20years,contribute%20to%20this%20alarming%20statistic.
It's entirely possible that if we really had equality and choice, and equality of choice, more women would hew to stereotypically feminine pasttimes. But we don't have a way to separate gender roles from biology under we achieve that still-mythical equality. So in the meantime, we can focus on equality of opportunity. I'm writing about this a lot in my book on the ideal of the housewife.
Yes, equality of opportunity is certainly important. And I also wish that we would cultivate a societal acceptance of the differences between men and women, and not rank the qualities associated with the sexes, which would also benefit gender non-confirming people, by the way. Women do tend to want to stay home with the kids more than men, and I suspect it has a lot to do with biology rather than socialization. That work should be seen as much a contribution to society as, say, working in an office. It would be even better if staying at home was remunerated, which would enable parents, regardless of their sex, to decide who stays home with the kids not based on their jobs but based on their desires... But of course that's mythical utopia again, at least for now.
I look forward to reading your next book! "Tomboy" is on its way to me from my local library already.
"That work [staying at home with the kids] should be seen as much a contribution to society as, say, working in an office."
Indeed. Reminds me of the quip that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" - old 1865 poem in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hand_That_Rocks_the_Cradle_(poem)
But if that's the case - some merit in it - then one might argue that many of the social problems we face are due to women falling down on that job. 😉 Or that economic factors have conspired to prevent them from performing it.
Though part of the problem there is a case of supply and demand: the more people available to do a given task, the more competition there is for those jobs and lower wages offered. Might be wise if we paid housewives - at least those with kids - a decent salary, though there's then the problem of ensuring adequate performance and decent quality of the resulting "product" - so to speak. 🙂
But to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone, and relative to your earlier, "murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes", you might be interested in this oldish essay which has helpful population distributions by sex of a composite of personality traits - essentially "gender" in a nutshell:
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
Of maybe particular relevance to something you had said earlier:
"When social influences are weakened (in more egalitarian societies), the sex-related differences in personality and preferences increase.[h] [i] This suggests that as environmental pressures become relaxed, innate sex-specific preferences surface."
Rather moot, and often a fractious bone of contention, as to how much of those personality and behaviour differences by sex - and their consequential stereotypes - are due to nature and how much to nurture. And how much to individual choice - presumably we are all, more or less, more than just our biology or what our environments have "programmed" us as.
As usual you nailed it! May this get picked up and see the publication you deserve - as you are speaking the truth!!!
Thanks for the great conversation. Lots of wonderful insights here. I was particularly interested in the discussion on word choice, eg, gender-affirming as euphemistic, mutilation as too harsh the other way, and ending on bilateral mastectomy (factual and neutral). As someone who had the Hobson’s choice of dying of breast cancer v. Bilateral mastectomy (hopefully for many today there are less drastic choices), I do have, ironically, a problem with the neutral term. While I appreciate where Keig is coming from, there’s a complexity to this that I want to point out. To have to have a bilateral mastectomy in order to avoid dying was a terrible choice. It was not staying over in the hospital, or even undergoing the surgery (which is not that tough for most of us), but rather having to mutilate my body to stay alive. As a friend who had to do the same because of cancer said at the time--if we were men, they would come up with something less horrible than this kind of mutilation. So, for me, the neutral term doesn’t get at what the experience is like. Over time, I have of course learned to live with it, but I really don’t want anyone to think this kind of choice was just fine, and mutilation helps convey that. The other aspect of this that I’d note is breast reconstruction is no panacea. First, the way these surgeries were conducted at the time, the basic breast removal offered no pretense of cosmetic look, even flat-chested. Instead, you were set up to either go with crude scars or undergo often several cosmetic operations to end up with fake breasts without sensation and also potentially problems with silicon implants. I had a friend with advanced cancer who went through this, because she couldn’t bear looking unwomanly. Several surgeries later, she had new fake breasts, and shortly afterward, she died. I feel sad and angry for Keig that societal norms made it untenable for Keig to present as a woman safely, but what I would wish for all of us is that bodily mutilation was not seen as the only way to address this. Let’s change the world, not our bodies.