Sexism cuts both ways

Press, 25 February 1989, Page 20

Sexism cuts both ways

Two years ago, when she was 11, my daughter made a speech which a boy in her class complained was sexist. She asked what sexism meant to him. “It’s when youse girls have a go at us fellas,” he said. Now she could hardly be accused of paranoia if she had said: “It is not! It’s when youse fellas have a go at us girls.” But she did not. She told him sexism was discriminating against either males or females purely on grounds of their gender. Even at 11, she recognised sexism cuts both ways. Co-ed schools undoubtedly help confront stereotypes. Both my daughters unselfconsciously defend boys who are belittled (usually by both sexes) if their aspirations fall outside the usual channels. - When we could not buy a pattern, the dressmaker made a quick sketch remarking her son was “very good at this sort of thing.” My daughter was impressed and asked if he was a dress designer. "No, but he would like to be.” “Well why isn’t he?” “Because his father couldn’t handle it. He wants him to be something macho — like a butcher.” My daughter, who obviously thinks a dress designer is a very smart thing for anyone to want to be, was hopping mad and quite upset, and she does not even know the boy! Although it is more likely to be the other way round, males do suffer putdowns not routinely applied to females. How many times have you heard it said if a guy has never married by the time he is 40, there has to be something wrong with him. But I have never heard anyone say if a woman is not married by 40 there is something wrong with her. There is even a theory proposed (only half in jest) that men marry down, meaning they generally choose mates who are younger, shorter, or less educated. Consequently, those

who remain unmarried are the creme de la creme of women because there are no men above them and the dregs of the men because there are no women below them. The younger generation are less openly sexist, while their elders, even when they are trying, sometimes have a problem. When we asked our nephew, Sam, aged 13, what he did in his spare time, red haired Sam, who has a lisp, answered beguilingly: “Croththitch.” “What?” “Croth-thitch. You know thewing,” Sam repeated patiently. What with his lisp and his challenge to gender stereotypes, it was a while before we grasped that Sam likes cross-stitch. We the elders who assumed all boys have technical interests were caught off guard. But my

daughters, who cannot do cross-stitch, saw nothing amiss. If we assume some pursuits are exclusively male and others exclusively female, it cuts off many options for both boys and girls. Listening to a programme on knitting on National Radio, I was very impressed that a learn-to-knit campaign encompassed both boys and girls. Every little boy questioned was pretty positive looking, past peggy squares to jerseys and scarves. When a senior marketing man for the Wool Board was interviewed later in the programme, the kids probably thought it very odd that he did not even know how to knit. Yet his contemporaries would probably think he was a bit cuckoo if he did. But the younger generation, especially my daughters, whose liberalism I have been commending, are quite capable of advancing their own self interest with a gall I find quite breathtaking. When I complained the teenagers did not do enough around the house, the elder spotted her longsuffering father and said: “But Mum ... you go to feminist studies don’t you “Yes.” “Well, shouldn’t Dad be doing the housework?” “Why?” -i “Well I thought the first thing you learn at feminist studies is that men are supposed to do the housework.” Sexism is fine when it suits.