Blog #3: Melanie

1.) How does this article demonstrate the principle of social learning/modeling?

It seems to me that the article demonstrates that the parents do not want their child/children to

be influenced by social learning/modeling. At least not the social influences from the outside

world. The child/children are still being influenced by the behaviors that they are exposed to

within their own family – influences from their parent’s behaviors and ideas as well as from their

sibling’s behaviors and ideas.

2.) Do you think that more parents should take this approach to gender/sex interactions? Why or

why not?

No, I really do not, at least not to this extreme. I totally agree that children should not be forced

or heavily influenced to dress or behave in any certain way simply because of their biological

sex. I don’t believe that girls should only be allowed or heavily influenced to play with dolls,

or other “feminine” toys and I don’t believe that boys only be allowed or heavily influenced to

play with toy cars, or other “masculine” toys. I strongly believe that children have the right to

play with whatever toys they have an interest in playing with as long as that toy is safe. I believe

this allows the child to experience both aspects of femininity and masculinity, and in turn that

having been able to see and experience aspects of both sides they would become more balanced

and have a much better understanding of both. However when it comes to the child’s appearance

I believe there should be some limitations. I am not saying that a girl needs to only wear “frilly”

pink or purple dresses or that a boy should only wear blue or green outfits with sports logos but

there needs to be some consideration for how the child will be received in society. Especially

when the child is too young to understand his/her choices.

3.) Social accountability is defined as a conscious effort to construct your own and others'

gendered identities in ways that make you more socially acceptable. How would you apply

this definition/concept to this case study?

I think in this case the parents have decided to go to the extreme in the other direction. By not

helping guide their children’s choices until they are mature enough to understand these decisions

they have exposed them to needless questions and ridicule. This can be very confusing and

hurtful to the children. I do not necessarily think it is a good or healthy idea to allow your

children to dress in whatever they choose. If the child were simply playing dress up at home, I

would not see that as a problem at all, but to allow your child to dress up in clothes that would

most likely or certainly cause them to be teased, ridiculed, or rejected as a playmate by other

children is a different matter altogether. To me this is not only irresponsible and cruel, but can

also be very psychologically damaging to a young child. Children can be very hurtful when they

tease other children and this can have a very traumatic effect on the child that is being

victimized. Children deserve the benefit of having their parents help guide them through

decisions that they are not yet mature enough to understand. That does not mean that you have

to impose gender roles on your child, it just means that as a parent you have a responsibility to

consider how your child will be treated as the result of your actions. I believe this can be done

carefully and thoughtfully enough to where you are not turning your child into a “stereotypical”

and very limited little boy or girl, but helping them understand both sides of the coin without

exposing them to ridicule that they most certainly would not benefit from or even truly

understand yet.

4.) The Witterick/Stocker's have received a "deluge" of criticism in regards to their choice to

withhold Storm's sex from the public. I posted these on Facebook and it received quite a few

comments and most were not favorable. Why is their decision so controversial? Why is society

so critical of this decision?

The decision is so controversial because it is so extreme and it really does not make much sense

at all. They are allowing their children to make decisions that they are not mature enough to

make and it is the children that will pay the consequences of their parent’s radical “attention

seeking” approach.

I believe society is so critical of this case because it is so radical and there is a tremendous

potential for the children to suffer for decisions that they do not even understand. I do not believe

that it is ever a “good” idea to use small children as some sort of social science experiment. In

my opinion “all harm springs from excess” and this approach seems very excessive to me and

judging by the comments I read on line to many others as well.