Amanda S. sent in a great example of the assumption that only women care for children, this one from a government agency. The photograph is of a section of the California Department of Motor Vehicles Driver’s Manual. It specifies that one might want to give a little bit of extra street-crossing time to older people, disabled people, and “women with young children” (apparently dads are never in public with their children… or else they hurry those slowpokes right along):
What I like about this example, in particular, is that it shows that gendered assumptions about parenting (mostly the assumption that women do it) isn’t just something that advertisers and other cultural producers do, it is also reflected in official government business. And, while this mistake doesn’t have any concrete consequences, if it is easy for this sort of thing to go unnoticed in this context, you could imagine it going unnoticed in materials that do, in fact, affect public policy.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 25
Muscat — November 22, 2010
You're right on target, except your response is making a different assumption - that the caregiver is a parent. Versus, say, an extended family member taking care of the children, a person paid to provide care/supervision, or some socialized form of shared childcare, for example.
decius — November 22, 2010
This is a perfect example where 'people' would do just fine.
msc — November 22, 2010
I understand that the gendered notion is important, but overall, the entire entry in the book is pointless. Give them more time? It's not like I give pedestrians a set amount of time to cross a street before I just decide to run them over.
Jfermiller — November 22, 2010
Womens with dem childrens walks slower than da mens with dem childrens.
Candace — November 22, 2010
Really? Is this what we're concerned about? This is today's agenda? The fact that a manual used "women" as opposed to "people" or "pedestrian"? I really love so much about this site, but sometimes it just makes me question if I'm angry enough as a woman. I don't think I am. I get that it can be annoying for it to be so gender biased for the masses to assume that women are always the ones that care for children. But, what about the other part of that excerpt? Not all elderly walk especially slow. But, that isn't your audience... I look forward to tomorrow's topic, and gaining more insight. Sociological Images generally gives me something to think about. Not this time. *rant*
Tyburn Blossom — November 23, 2010
This reminds me a bit of when I worked for my state's health department, at least regarding government and gender. When I started working there, it had both a men's health services and a women's health services area. While I was there, they changed "women's health services," to "maternal and child health services."
At the time, I remember sitting at my desk and thinking, "Wow. So this state officially doesn't give a damn about you if your female unless you're pregnant or have children." It's also interesting to think that they seem to assume only women would be coming to the health department looking for services for children.
Bob — November 24, 2010
I feel that you have misinterpreted the bias...
The definition only assumes that women are slow crossing the street with children...
Men don't make traffic wait. sorry