Gender Enculturization
...tly that (Giddens, Duneier, Appelbaum, 2003, p102). The research done by Zammuner (1986) relating to the attitudes of seven to ten year old children toward stereotypically gendered toys inspired me to test whether similar results would occur in my sample of considerably younger children (Giddens, Duneier, Appelbaum, 2003, p102). Finally, to determine whether the subjects have a concept of gender differentiated occupations, I asked them what they wanted to be when the grew-up. All the results were tabulated. Findings The results of the research relating to identification of gender seem to confirm the ideas presented by Giddens, Duneier and Appelbaum. Every one of the twelve respondents was able to correctly label himself/herself, and a classmate, as either a boy or girl. In a number of the encounters the children clearly showed that they were amused by the absurdity of the questions by, for example, calling me “silly.” Two of the boys were actually quite insulted by the implication that they might be confused for a girl! The results of the toy test were also conclusive. When choosing between a fire-truck and pink-laced teddy-bear, or a plastic drill and a doll, nine children chose the toy that would normally be associated with their gender. One of the remaining three subjects was unable to make a decision. Finally, the occupations given by the children clearly tended toward those which are traditionally ascribed to members of their own gender. The girls listed: teacher, gymnast and cheerleader, to name a few; the boys dream of being firemen, karate instructors, woodchoppers and one daring soul even wants to be a king! The occupations that were mentioned that could be viewed as non-gendered were veterinarian and dentist (and perhaps motor-biker!). Apart from their direct answers, observation of the children also provided evidence that they have well developed notions of male and female distinctions. Here are the most notable examples: 1) The teacher had arranged the toys so that boy’s toys were separate from girl’s toys (a non-too-subtle source of genderization). When one boy placed a teddy-bear in the boy’s section, another boy sternly told him to move it into the girls section. 2) When I asked a boy to identify the gender of the girl next to him he answered correctly then added, “Can’t you see? She’s got long hair.” 3) A boy and girl had almost identical shoes on, so I asked the girl why she was wearing boy’s shoes. After a short hesitation she answered, “My shoes are for girls – they have pink laces.” This color differentiation was quite pronounced among the sample population. Of the six girls, two were wearing yellow dresses and three had on pink t-shirts (this might be an indication of gender socialization, intentional or not, by the parents of the girls). Conclusions The evidence leaves no doubt that, by the age of four, children can easily distinguish between girls and boys. This result was expected. My study regarding toy selection supports the findings of Zammuner (1986) and extends it to include children younger than she studied. Three of every four children chose the toy that would normally be associated with their own gender. This is too high a percentage to be dismissed as random choice – some level of gender norm knowledge must be responsible, or at least influential. The ...