I can already see problems with the study. First, with respect to the following:


One important part of this experiment, though, was that teachers had to treat boys and girls equally. If boys were allowed to pass out the scissors, girls had to be allowed to pass out the glue-no favoritism or competition allowed!

One could argue that the "scissors" are more "dangerous" than the glue. If the boys were allowed to pass out scissors, then why weren't the girls encouraged to do the same? Likewise, if the girls were allowed to pass out the glue, then why weren't the boys?


In Bigler’s research on gender-labeling, having gender stereotypes meant that students in the gender-labeling classes were more likely to say that "only men" should do certain jobs.

But I wonder if this isn't just a product of dichotomous thinking, in general, which is typical of children. Besides, children grow and mature. A better point of investigation is to determine whether or not students who were formerly part of gender-labeling classes carry gender labels with them into a world in which such gender labeling is less acceptable.

Perhaps most importantly, all this focus on the adverse effects of gender stereotyping directs attention away from the effects of other forms of stereotyping (e.g. racial, creed, political, etc.). Who's to say that gender stereotyping has the most impact on a child's development? What if there are interactions among stereotypes?

More Posts