The main idea that helps to explain this intentional dissimilarity
between men and women as they become older is the evidence of schools having hidden curriculums. The text defines
this underlying phenomenon as “covert lessons that schools teach…means of
social control...include teaching about work differentially by class, political
socialization and training in obedience and docility…demands the practice of
bodily control in congruence with the goals of the schools as an institution”
(p. 495). Perhaps the most interesting conclusion made about this type of curriculum
is that “it reworks the students from the outside in on the presumption that to
shape the body is to shape the mind” (p. 495-496). What are they doing to our
nation’s children? I mean, seriously.
Elaborating on this idea of preschools having hidden
curriculums, I think this raises a serious question: if parents are always
typically blamed for raising their children in a gender specific way (i.e. girls
do ballet and boys play soccer), why aren’t teachers ever blamed for creating these
bodily differences as well? Before this reading, I never thought about teachers
ever teaching us children in such a way as described here. However, my
preschool was not nearly as specific when it came to violence and how it should
occur, using such rules and posting them in the playroom (referring to
Preschool B, the catholic school). Half of us are just starting to read and
understand the English language.
Of course I can understand that naturally the anatomy and
biology of men and women are different. However, it is not to say that every
person’s body is built exactly to match the gender they are. I can agree with
this statement: “generally, women’s bodies are more confined, their movements
restricted…some of these differences, particularly differences in motor skills
(e.g., jumping, running, throwing) are seen in early childhood” (p. 494). But
what about the girls and women whose bodies are not like this? Should they have
still had their bodies almost controlled
(I use this word loosely) according
to their sex from an early age? No. Athletes push their bodies all the time in
accordance to how they want to live their life and what activities they want
their body to engage in. It just reminds me of the known fact of young women
being 5 times more likely to tear their ACL than young men. There have been
many debates surrounding this issue, as to why it occurs more. Here is data
graph, courtesy of My Doctor Online,
showing the huge gap between them.
With that said, I lastly would like to express another
thought came to mind: if modifying bodily differences between sexes are occurring
in preschool, what about parents who do not place their kids in preschool for whatever their reason? Are
those children still experiencing these same differences, but maybe to a lesser
degree? I would like to see a study done with students like this, including
discussions with parents. That way, we can have data and observation to compare
to that of this study as well.

Christiana, I definitely agree with your statement, “athletes push their bodies all the time in accordance to how they want to live their life and what activities they want their body to engage in”. After reading Martin’s piece, I started to wonder if her work was getting to be outdated because my childhood didn’t consist of always “acting like a girl”. I played sports and wanted to be active. I didn’t play dress up and I still don’t like shopping or the idea of a “girl’s day out”. So, I looked at the date of her work, and it said 1998, making me four years old and about to be (or already) in preschool. This gives me the thought that her work was probably based on my generation. If that is the case, that would surprise me because, like I said above, my childhood was not as “controlled” or “restricted” as described in this study.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Christiana's last question, about if modifying bodily differences differed from parents who do not place their kids in preschool compared to regular pre-schoolers, I found this to be a very interesting proposition. I can see both sides to if it lessens the modification of the child by being home schooled. Obviously when a student is surrounded by their peers they want to "fit in" by following many of the typical trends such as, "61 percent of girls wore pink each day" (pg. 498). So looking at this aspect I could see why kids might be less modified by being home schooled. Although looking at it from the other perspective, if a parent forces a certain type of dress on a child at an early age, he/she may also become modified not by their peers, but their parents. This is a very interesting topic presented and I'm not completely sure on either way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christiana’s idea that schools are shaping their curriculums around “shaping the body [in hopes of] shaping the mind". I think Martin’s explanation behind this statement and how it is justified is because they believe “bodies are (unfinished) resources that must be ‘trained, manipulated, cajoled, coaxed, and in general disciplined’” (494-495). I also agree that this “hidden curriculum” puts a tremendous amount of power on teachers, as they are able to play the role of a parent. However, I think it is still a parents’ or caretakers responsibility to mold and shape their child. Children spend a significant amount of time in school, but there is also a significant amount of time spent in the home where molding can be done.
ReplyDelete