讓小孩遠離性別偏見

scrolling through my Twitter timeline this week， one particular tweet， with an image attached， immediately jumped out at me. A parent had shared a snapshot of her six-year-old child’s homework—a worksheet asking pupils to research a scientist or inventor. So far， so normal. But the question， in 1）jaunty Comic Sans， read： “Who was he？ Who was the person you have chosen to look at？ How old were they when they began inventing？ Did they have a wife and family？”

The frustration of the parent， who appealed to other Twitter users for suggestions of female inventors， would be dismissed by many as an overreaction to a carelessly worded question. But she is far from alone. Parents share similar homework woes with the Everyday Sexism website and Twitter account with startling regularity.

One referenced their son’s physics homework， which used examples of men pushing vans， lifting weights， climbing trees and shooting arrows. The sole female example was a woman pushing a pram. Another parent described an assignment where children were directed to use a particular biographical research website， only to find that， of the 21 historical personalities listed， just two were women. One person’s son had even been asked to compare the qualities of a “good wife” from biblical to modern times （with no similar exercise discussing the merits of husbands）. Numerous questions involved men doing active， strong tasks such as driving or playing sports， while women cooked， cleaned or， in one particularly bizarre example， simply “sat on a rug”.

To those who cry “overreaction”， a new study published this month by the U.S.-based National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that gender bias at primary school may in fact have long-term implications for pupils. The study saw several groups of students take two exams， one marked blind by outside examiners， the other marked by teachers who knew the students’names. In maths， girls outperformed boys on the anonymously marked exam， but boys outperformed girls when assessed by teachers who knew their names， suggesting that they may have overestimated the boys’ abilities and underestimated the girls’.

Tracking the pupils to the end of high school， the researchers found that boys who were given encouragement as youngsters not only performed better later on， but were also more likely to take advanced courses involving maths， compared with girls who had been discouraged. They concluded： “Teachers’ overassessment of boys in a specific subject has a positive and significant effect on boys’ overall future achievements in that subject， while having a significant negative effect on girls.”

Of course， many teachers actively encourage girls into Stem （science， technology， engineering and mathematics） subjects. But gender stereotypes are not only passed on at school. They also 2）proliferate in the advertising， television， books， magazines and conversations that children are exposed to from a young age. One parent recently recounted to me the moment that their three-year-old daughter picked up a toy 3）stethoscope， only for another well-meaning adult to swoop in and comment： “Ah， are you going to be a nurse？” Not， of course， that it wouldn’t be a fine choice of profession， but what would the corresponding comment have been had a little boy chanced upon the same toy？

That young people might be deeply influenced by the gender stereotypes 4）thrust upon them should give us all pause. How often do we 5）heedlessly shower little girls with 6）platitudes about prettiness and looks， or comment on how “big and strong” their brothers are growing？ We hear comments about the sweetness and politeness of daughters， while sons are proudly described as boisterous instead.

In the strictly 7）segregated aisles of many toy stores， blue shelves mark off chemistry sets， dinosaurs and building tools as the domain of boys， while girls are left holding the （plastic） baby.

Each individual incident is easily dismissed as harmless. And， of course， there’s nothing wrong with an individual child choosing to identify with any of these roles. But it’s the assumptions made for them that matter. Young children are not always equipped， as most adults are， with the critical tools to analyse and probe information—what is presented as fact is often absorbed without question. This might seem extreme， until， as I have， you visit a variety of primary school classrooms and start to realise just how many under-10s genuinely think that girls simply aren’t allowed to be footballers or doctors or lawyers. Ask your nearest small friend about these matters—you may be unpleasantly surprised.

The silver lining is that change is happening. Several toy stores have abandoned gender segregation， partly thanks to the efforts of campaigns such as Pinkstinks and Let Toys Be Toys. The parent whose tweet first caught my eye later reported an excellent response and apology from the school. There is hope， too， in the reactions of children themselves. One mother described how， asked to complete a drawing for homework showing “Mummy in the kitchen”， her seven-year old son added his daddy to the picture， doing the washing up.

It’s refreshing to see how ridiculous sexism can look through children’s eyes. If we could only restrain ourselves from passing our own inherited assumptions on to them.

瀏覽這周我推特上的內容時，其中一條有圖片的推特立即把我吸引住了。一位家長分享了一張她六歲孩子作業的圖片，題目要求學生們調查一位科學家或發明家。目前為止一切正常。但所提的問題卻是（字體是歡樂的漫畫字體）：“他是誰？你選擇調查的是什么人？他們開始發明時幾歲？他們是否有妻子和自己的家庭？”

這位家長詢問其他推特用戶所知道的女性發明者，但很多人覺得她的懊惱只是對一個無心的措辭問題的過度反應而不予理睬。但她絕不是在孤軍作戰。父母們在“每日性別歧視網”和在推特上分享相似的作業苦惱，讓人吃驚的是，這種事情時有發生。

一位家長指出，兒子的物理作業用的例子是男人推小貨車、抬重物、爬樹和射箭。而唯一出現女性的例子是推嬰兒車。另一位家長稱一份作業是教孩子們使用一個傳記搜索網站，但卻發現在“21世紀歷史人物”的名單中，只有兩位是女性。一位家長的兒子甚至被要求對比《圣經》時代和現代的“好妻子”的品質（沒有討論丈夫美德的類似題目）。還有很多問題是關于男人從事積極的、強度大的活動，如開車、做運動，而女人則是在做飯、清潔或，在一個離奇的例子中，就只是“坐在毯子上”。

要跟那些喊著“反應過度”的人說的是：美國國家經濟研究局本月發表的一項新研究表明小學里的性別歧視真的會對學生有長期的影響作用。研究中，幾組學生分別參加了兩次考試，一次由外部評分者匿名評分，另一次由知道學生名字的老師評分。……