Pink Is for Girls

Introduction

Because most teachers and educational leaders are not also researchers, the field of education is rife with faddism (Elder & Paul, 2007). Some authors and proponents of educational reform are quick to take advantage of this fact (Schmoker, 2010). This case challenges the reader to sift through proposed educational solutions to the pressing problems faced in classrooms and schools for their veracity and make evidence-based decisions. Some researchers would argue that single-sex education is a non-research-based educational fad (Rivers & Barnett, 2011). In the 1996 case United States v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of single-sex public education. Single-sex education in public schools was ruled constitutional when comparable courses, services, and facilities are made available to both sexes (Cohen & Levit, 2013). The proliferation of single-sex schools began after President George W. Bush weakened Title IX provisions in 2006 allowing for expanded sex segregation in schools (Rivers & Barnett, 2011).

Proponents of single-sex education argue that there are differences in how boys and girls learn and behave in educational settings and that separating boys and girls by curriculum or schools increases students’ achievement and academic interest (Gurian, 2010; Sax, 2012; Sommers, 2013). They also allege that by separating the sexes, teachers are better able to meet the needs of each student because students are not distracted by the “opposite” sex and can pay closer attention to the lesson (Gurian, 2010; Sax, 2012; Sommers, 2013). Opponents of single-sex education argue that segregation leads to increased stereotyping and limited social skills (Eliot, 2010a, 2010b; Rivers & Barnett, 2011). Neuroscientist and opponent of single-sex education Lise Eliot (2010a, 2010b) examined decades of research on neuroplasticity and found that infant brains are highly malleable and that parents and educators impose their own gender biases upon infants and young children, further affecting their future educational development.

Programs and schools based on single-sex education, such as Women’s Colleges, created for affirmative purposes, such as redressing past discriminations, were permissible under the original intent of Title IX (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). However, the expansion of single-sex education in the post-Bush era for non-affirmative purposes not only flies in the face of the spirit of Title IX but also serves to promote traditional gender roles and contributes to the backlash against egalitarianism in education (Rivers & Barnett, 2011). The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2015) has, at the time of this writing, closed investigations of complaints against single-sex education as violations of Title IX in Wisconsin after schools ceased the practice (American Civil Liberties Union, 2014a). Many other complaints of sex discrimination and Title IX violations are still under investigation in Florida, Texas, and Idaho (American Civil Liberties Union, 2014b).

This case is both timely and relevant to both teachers and educational leaders, for it highlights the importance of using evidence to inform district decisions, particularly as decisions related to learning become standard practice. Educational leaders must also understand the need to engage their staff in relevant and research-based professional development to build the organizational capacity needed to support student success (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Collaboration and implementation of a shared vision and mission facilitates this process. In this case, the curriculum director, Mr. Lawrence, has developed a plan for curriculum changes in which boys and girls would be separated by classroom, and participate in distinct curricula based on the premise that innate differences between males and females should drive educational models and instructional strategies designed to address the needs and use the strengths of each sex. The reader is asked to decide if this plan is not only pedagogically valid but also the best decision for this particular school.

Characters

Dr. Chambers is a White female is her mid-30s. Based on her recently completed doctorate in educational leadership, she is aware that single-sex education is not based on scientific research or best practices. Dr. Chambers has recently accepted a position at Riverbed Elementary as assistant principal. This is her first administrative position. Prior to being hired at Riverbed Elementary, Dr. Chambers worked for 10 years as an elementary teacher in various grades.

Ms. Stanley is a White female in her mid-20s. Based on her pre-service teacher education program, Ms. Stanley is aware of the provisions of Title IX that prohibit sex segregation and also of the “pseudo-scientific” proliferations of traditional gender role/sex segregated curricula.

Mr. Lawrence is a White male in his late 40s. A veteran of the district, he has spent his entire career at Riverbed Elementary and has been unhappy with his previous role in determining curriculum and with the relative lack of success of the boys in the school in comparison with the girls. He recently attended a professional development seminar titled “The Boy Crisis in Education.” Mr. Lawrence has repeatedly stated that he wanted his classroom to be “girl-free” because girls tend to be “bossy.”

Dr. Brock is a relatively new hire to the district. She is in her third year as principal of Riverbed Elementary. Riverbed Elementary is the most underperforming school in the district. Although the school is not in danger of being placed in academic emergency, Dr. Brock is under pressure to improve test scores, particularly in third grade because of the state’s new provisions with the Third Grade Reading Guarantee.

Mrs. Blankenship is a woman in her mid-40s, and a 15-year veteran of Riverbed Elementary. She is the only African American teacher at Riverbed Elementary and one of only a few in the entire district. Mrs. Blankenship has been an outspoken critic of the single-sex experiment at Riverbed Elementary, but her claims were largely ignored.

The Case

Dr. Chambers was excited to begin her new job as assistant principal at Riverbed Elementary. A 34-year-old recent graduate of a prestigious university in New York City, she accepted a job in a Midwestern suburb quite near to an urban setting after a few phone interviews and a lucrative offer. Dr. Chambers was ready to leave the stress of New York for a slower paced community. She was also anxious to get in on the ground floor as a new administrator and help to guide a new programs within the school that were being piloted. Although not 100% clear on the details, she was told that the third-grade curriculum was in the process of being revamped based on recent neuroscience findings. She was assured that she would be apprised of the details upon her arrival, 1 month prior to the start of the school year. She was also promised that she would be involved in guiding all curricular transitions.

Riverbed Elementary, founded in 1936, is a suburban-rural public school, kindergarten through fifth grade, situated in an upper-middle-class area. The school is home to classrooms, a gymnasium, a visual arts studio, theater, and athletic fields. Enrollment is approximately 350 students. Riverbed employs 23 full- and part-time faculty members, of which, 17 have a masters degree or higher, including two PhDs.

The school is known in the community for its academic excellence, scoring an overall “A” on the state report card for the last five academic years and met all indicators. Riverbed Elementary earned an “A” on the performance index, which measures the achievement of every student and on its overall value added, which measures the growth of all students. The school also earned an “A” for gifted students, an “A” for disabled students, and a “C” for students in the lowest 20%. The data indicated that a large percentage of third-grade boys were underperforming their female counterparts in reading. Students who have test scores in the lowest 20% in the state was an alarming finding to the school. The principal explained, “That group needs our continued attention and focus. We need to find a way to reach those students and provide the education they need. We need to provide the latest in teaching strategies and curriculum.” Over the course of Riverbed Elementary history, there had been decades of academic success. However, in a changing educational climate, Riverbed is a microcosm of the many challenging issues and trends in the field of education today.

To clarify, changes in state-level legislation require students to be on track for reading success by the end of third grade. This involves the identification of students from kindergarten through Grade 3 that are behind in reading to make sure they receive the help and support they need. To meet the needs of the students, several key approaches to learning in particular distinguish the curriculum: more classroom time devoted to literacy, and sex differentiated curriculum and instruction in third grade. As a result of these and other changes from the state Department of Education, administrators at Riverbed Elementary felt curriculum changes were necessary. The curriculum was differentiated by sex by associating masculinity and femininity with different subjects and teaching different material or treating the material differently according to which gender is being taught (Paechter, 2006). As a strategy for student engagement, when teaching English to boys-only classrooms the focus is on war, guns, and sports (Martino & Meyenn, 2002) as opposed to a girls-only classroom where the focus is on female heroes, pets, and fashion.

It was last spring when the curriculum director together with the principal of Riverbed Elementary brought their plan to differentiate the curriculum by sex to the school board’s attention, justified by the proliferation of such programs burgeoning throughout the country. Through the use of curriculum differentiation by sex, school authorities could make decisions that affect how and how much a student learns. The rationale for organizing the curriculum on the basis of sex was presented as a method of facilitating the instruction of the academic population and to manage their behavior. Before the end of the academic year, the school board adopted a policy of differentiating the school curriculum by sex. The purpose of this policy was to differentiate curricular content and teaching strategies based on sex to better meet students’ needs. The curriculum director would cover the details at a faculty workday prior to the start of the academic year.

Mr. Lawrence, curriculum director for the district, began the faculty orientation presentation by disseminating two books to each participant: Boys and Girls Learn Differently! A Guide for Teachers and Parents, by Michael Gurian (2010), and Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences, by Leonard Sax (2006). Sax’s National Association for Choice in Education and Gurian’s Gurian Institute are the two foremost organizations that have worked to spread single-sex education throughout the country (Cohen & Levit, 2013). As a curriculum director, he had developed a plan for curriculum changes at Riverbed Elementary and Principal Brock fully endorsed his implementation plan.

Mr. Lawrence opened his presentation by citing a recent online article from Time magazine written by Christina Hoff Sommers (2013). He then began his PowerPoint presentation where he demonstrated the third-grade curricular plan for the year: boys and girls would be separated by classroom, and participate in distinct curriculums based on the premise that innate differences between boys and girls should drive educational models and instructional strategies designed to address the needs and strengths of each sex. He went on to discuss the views outlined in the article, such as the following: Curricula educating boys should be based on action, activity, engagement, and fun; boys should not be expected to sit still and be quiet, but should be free to explore their “maleness” in a non-judgmental environment. Mr. Lawrence argued that the teachers of the boys would amplify their voices electronically based on inherently male “hearing deficiencies,” as delineated by Leonard Sax (2006). Boys would also be exposed to a logic-centered, inquiry-based math curriculum, which would take precedence over the traditional literacy-based elementary curriculum.

In attendance was Dr. Chambers, who had recently moved to the area and was hired on August 1. Dr. Chambers entered her new place of employment, Riverbed Elementary, to observe the new faculty orientation. Upon entering the building, Dr. Chambers was welcomed by Dr. Brock, who informed her that there were two separate faculty orientations occurring and that she was invited to visit both. Dr. Brock informed Dr. Chambers that she would introduce her when the full faculty were together in one room after the orientation presentations.

The first orientation Dr. Chambers visited consisted of an hour-long presentation detailing what boys could expect within this “male-centered” curriculum, including constructivist principles such as inquiry and project-based learning, learning through play, non-authoritarian behavioral expectations, student-centered literacy centers based on themes such as sports, hunting, fishing, war, scouting, and pets; the audience was all male. Dr. Chambers wondered not only where the women teachers were but also what the curriculum for the girls would be like. She stepped out of the room and entered the second orientation room.

In the other orientation, Dr. Chambers noticed that the all female audience was given the same texts as the male audience. As she listened to the presentation, already in progress, she was presented with a curriculum that was no different from what she herself had experienced as a young girl in the 1990s: The girls were expected to sit in rows, to raise their hands when speaking, to speak in quiet voices, and to focus on their inherent strengths—reading and writing.

During a break, Dr. Chambers removed herself from the conference room into the adjoining staff room for some coffee, and felt relieved when she noticed a table of women chatting. She introduced herself as the new assistant principal, and asked the table of her future colleagues whether she could join them. They happily obliged. The four women at the table introduced themselves, two of them were veteran second-grade teachers, and the other two were also new hires working in the third grade. Dr. Chambers asked the two new hires what they thought of their curriculum presentation.

Both said nothing, but Dr. Chambers could tell by the expressions on their faces that they were unimpressed with the curricular presentation. As a new administrator, Dr. Chambers knew she had to gain the trust of the teachers, so she did not push with any more questions. They spend the rest of the break chatting about the school, and the surrounding community. When it was time to return to the orientation, Ms. Stanley smiled shyly at Dr. Chambers and whispered,

I was told that this new curriculum would be progressive and based upon neuroscience. I am pretty sure everything I learned in my teacher preparation program in terms of best practices is falling on its face, but I am afraid to speak up.

Dr. Chambers smiled, nodded, and returned to the orientation.

Upon returning to the orientation, Dr. Chambers found more of the same: the separation of sexes not only of the students but also of the staff. She was surprised that there were so many male teachers in the school to teach the male students, as she knew this was not the norm. She was dismayed by the binary views of gender that seemed to be held by the current staff and administration and justified by the texts that were passed out at the orientation.

The changes, as advocated by Mr. Lawrence in the orientation for male students and Dr. Brock in the orientation for female students, included increasing structure for boys through play and connection for girls through quiet communication. Nerf baseball bats were given to boys to release tension and books with strong male characters taking action. Teachers were encouraged to allow girls to take their shoes off to decrease stress, and to give them manipulatives, especially in the science classes. It was also noted that girls would be provided with pastel pink student handbooks and pens. For spelling and vocabulary lessons incorporating physical activity, girls would be provided hula-hoops and small rubber balls. The boys would be provided with yo-yos, bats, and badminton rackets.

After the orientations ended, all staff members were shepherded into the gym for a “welcome back” presentation by the school principal, Dr. Brock. Dr. Brock welcomed the new teachers by introducing all by name and inviting them to stand when called. She then expressed her enthusiasm for the newly devised single-sex curriculum that would be piloted for the third-grade classes.

She then thanked Mr. Lawrence for his work on this issue and for introducing this innovative idea to the school. She stated that she was inspired to make these changes after having conversations with Mr. Lawrence about how boys are being short changed when it comes to instructional strategies employed in the classroom. As evidence for this sentiment, she cited the current media blitz about the “boy crisis” in education. ¹ Rivers and Barnett (2011) succinctly delineate the “boy crisis,” “. . . the New Republic contends that schools offer ‘verbally drenched’ curricula that discriminate against boys, and New York Times columnist David Brooks writes that we have to give boys simple books about combat to overcome their lack of verbal ability” (p. 4).

Historically speaking, this is nothing new. In the early 1900s, the boy crisis was a portent that constant interaction with women in school was robbing young men of their manhood (Maschke, 1997). Dr. Brock indicated that the effectiveness of this new pilot would be studied for potential extension into all grades at the elementary school. Mr. Lawrence was invited to the stage, who subsequently extoled the virtues of their new adopted single-sex curricula, which, he argued, would elevate all students’ reading scores and literacy experiences in general because boys would be reading about boys’ experiences in an environment that actively engaged boys’ natural abilities through elevated teacher voice, competition, and active performance of literary text. Girls would be reading about experiences that were paradigmatic of girls’ experiences in an environment that was dimly lit, quiet, and safe, where girls would feel comfortable raising their hands, as they tend to do, and to share their points of view without being “shouted down” by male voices. Dr. Chambers listened intently to the presentation while looking around to try to gauge the perceptions of her new colleagues. She did not get much of a sense of her new colleagues’ opinions of the curricular changes one way or the other, with the exception of her private interaction with Ms. Stanley.

Finally, Dr. Brock introduced Dr. Chambers as the new assistant principal. Dr. Chambers walked to the microphone and greeted her new colleagues, but felt torn about how to comment on the new curricular changes, or the orientations. She then stated,

I am honored to have been offered the position as assistant principal at Riverbed Elementary, and I hope that together we can work to build the best curricula and programs for all of our students. I look forward to a great year.

Dr. Brock then returned to the microphone and announced that new faculty would now remain in the auditorium where they would meet their mentors. Dr. Chambers noticed that Ms. Stanley was paired with a veteran teacher named Mr. Blankenship. Dr. Chambers was relieved to find that the single-sex experiment did not extend to faculty mentoring. Seeing Dr. Brock and all of the other teachers engaged, Dr. Chambers made her way over to Ms. Stanley and Mr. Blankenship, and asked whether Mr. Blankenship might give them both a tour of the school.

During the tour, Dr. Chambers learned that Mr. Blankenship was a 15-year veteran of the school with a specialization in project-based learning. She was pleased to learn that all three of them shared many common pedagogical strategies and were philosophically aligned. As they neared the end of their tour, Mr. Blankenship suggested they grab coffee and then continue their chat in Ms. Stanley’s classroom, which she had yet to see. Mr. Blankenship escorted Dr. Chambers and Ms. Stanley to Ms. Stanley’s new classroom and proceeded to explain various school policies and procedures. Then the three sat down at a table in the back of the classroom. “So,” Mr. Blankenship began, “what did you think of today?” Dr. Chambers looked to Ms. Stanley to reply first, but she remained silent. Dr. Chambers then stated, “Well, I am not exactly sure. I have to tell you. I am a bit surprised about the curricular changes that are taking place this year. Since you have been here a while, what do you think?” Mr. Blankenship hesitated, and then smiled, “Do you really want to know?” “More than you know,” she replied. Mr. Blankenship smiled again, “How much time have you got?”

Mr. Blankenship continued cautiously,

I am very concerned about the teaching of stereotypes. This reminds me a lot of separate but equal, and we well know that was nowhere near equal. I know that girls like to yell and play too. I have seen similar experiments such as this in urban communities, but in those communities, the goal is to exert maximum control. But, I am still suspicious. This seems like just another fad. Education is rife with them. My mentor once told me, “if you do not like something that is occurring in education, just wait it out—because it will change.” The change process can be one of trepidation for many, and, oftentimes, teachers are resistant to change. Some may not feel that a particular change is important despite any data provided to convince them otherwise. Many will not change what they do in the classroom. The problem is we don’t have enough scholars within our ranks, so the decisions that affect us, but more importantly, those that affect our kids, come from the expertise of the curriculum director, Mr. Lawrence. But, enough negativity. Since this affects you directly, I suggest that you just observe, study, and measure. We can change things.

Dr. Chambers appreciated Mr. Blankenship’s candor, but soon took the opportunity exit, after thanking them both for the tour and the conversation. As a new administrator, she did not want to set a precedent for dissention among the teachers, or to project the idea that she did not support the administration. She needed time to learn her role as an administrator, but she also desired to research the curricular changes for the third grade to determine if this was something that needed revision. Dr. Chambers returned to the main office to find Dr. Brock who proceeded to show her around her new office and provide guidance on her duties.

Dr. Chambers went home that night to peruse the texts that were provided to the teachers. Although she felt fortunate to have been hired as an administrator after just finishing graduate school, she was not as optimistic as she thought she would be beginning the first school year of her administrative career. She never imagined that a philosophy that she did not agree with would be imposed on her. Although she felt intellectually prepared to speak out, she was fearful for her job.

Discouraged at the prospect of guiding a curriculum that she did not believe in, Dr. Chambers decided to do some research. She logged on to her computer and began reading peer-reviewed articles on neuroscience and sex differences (Cohen & Levit, 2013; Eliot, 2010a, 2010b; Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010). She soon came upon the following,

Our actual ability differences are quite small. Although psychologists can measure statistically significant distinctions between large groups of men and women or boys and girls, there is much more overlap in the academic and even social-emotional abilities of the genders than there are differences . . . [T]he range of performance within each gender is wider than the difference between the average boy and girl. (Eliot, 2010a, pp. 32-33)

In the article Dr. Chambers read, neuroscientist Eliot argues that there appears to be a difference between females and males in academic progress as indicated by differences in test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in every year of the assessment since 1971 (Eliot, 2010b; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). As Eliot argues, there is a small gap with females outperforming males in reading and males outperforming females in math.

Similar gaps between females and males exist on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA; Else-Quest et al., 2010). However, as Eliot (2010b) argued, a closer examination reveals that the gaps vary significantly by age, ethnicity, and nationality. Interestingly, a recent analysis of PISA data found that higher female performance in math is correlated with higher levels of gender equity in various countries (Eliot, 2010a). Dr. Chambers wondered just how harmful the single-sex education at Riverbed Elementary would be for girls’ math scores. Dr. Chambers continued her reading, limiting her searches to only peer-reviewed journals, and found that the overwhelming sentiments were similar to Eliot’s. She wondered why her field was so vulnerable to education fads as opposed to examining and utilizing scientific research. She went to bed troubled and angry. Sleeping little, she pondered what she should do with the information she had gathered that evening.

The next day, Dr. Chambers returned to work for a day of meetings and administrative duties. She did not yet have a plan to broach any of the information she had gleaned the night before with Dr. Brock or Mr. Lawrence, but was happy when Ms. Stanley appeared in the door of her office first thing. After exchanging brief pleasantries, Ms. Stanley, nodding toward the door of the office, asked, “Do you mind if I shut this?” “Please,” Dr. Chambers responded and took a seat, offering Ms. Stanley a chair across from hers. “I did a little bit of research last night on single-sex curriculums and schools across the country,” she paused. She continued when Mr. Chamber’s wry smile and nod of the head confirmed her that she was safe.

I found that the American Civil Liberties Union is characterizing programs like ours as sex discrimination. They are winning cases all over the country. I do not feel comfortable with this curriculum. I am not sure what I can do about this, but I knew that I had to talk to someone. I could go to the union about this, but I am a new hire and without tenure—and I know that you are a new administrator. I am afraid of being characterized as a “trouble maker,” but I want you to know that, for some reason, I feel comfortable sharing my concerns with you although we just met.

Dr. Chambers nodded encouragingly and stated,

I too did some research last night, but my angle was on the examination of the purported science behind these decisions. I found that there is no scientific justification for this curriculum. In fact, the science indicates quite the opposite, but I do not have any ideas on what we should do.

Ms. Stanley continued excitedly,

After you left my classroom yesterday, Mr. Blankenship and I continued talking. He raised a concern that I had never thought of, and that is: Where would a transgender child fit within these third grade classrooms? Statistically speaking, he stated, and I agree, this is likely to happen. Now, where is this child going to fit?

Dr. Chambers paused a moment.

I think that you are more vulnerable than I. What if you bring me your research, on the legal aspects, keep note of what you notice within your own classroom and the school in general, and bring all concerns to me? I will continue to look into this. And, please, continue to rely on your mentor. I think Mr. Blankenship will be an ally for you.

Teaching Notes

Single-sex education and its merits, although largely debunked pedagogically, are still being fought in the courts, as new courses and schools promoting segregation based on sex are created. What lies beneath the issue of single-sex education has much to do with people’s perceptions on gender. Eliot (2010b) argued that there are more differences within the category of biological females and the category of biological males than between. As Rivers and Barnett (2011) stated, “Boys often differ more from one another in their temperaments, their styles of play, and other such factors than they do from girls” (p. 156). Some opponents of single-sex education argue that proponents of sex-based segregation are making a political argument, not a scientific one, one that maintains traditional views on gender, and reinforcing age-old gender stereotypes (Rivers & Barnett, 2011). Social learning shapes gender, not biological sex.

Martin and Beese (2017) define gender as

. . .constantly evolving and is viewed by many as a socially constructed phenomenon, as performative, as a fluid and potentially ever-changing amalgamation of clothing, behaviors, gestures, speech patterns, and the like, subject to the milieu of which one is a member. Once thought to be essentially tied to biological sex, gender is now conceived as more prone to individual choice and level of comfort, and not inextricably linked to biology. (n.p.)

Gender bias in education tends to occur most often as a result of adherence to the philosophy of essentialism, or the notion that there are fixed characteristics women and men possess, which influences what it means to be feminine or masculine (Rivers & Barnett, 2011). This philosophy perpetuates that idea that the traditionally held ideas of women as more nurturing and men as more aggressive are natural (Eliot, 2010b). Gender bias occurs when one’s expectations and potentialities are limited because of the expectations others place on them and/or upon members of their sex in general, and/or when a person makes assumptions about another person’s behavior, preferences, or abilities based only on their gender. Gender bias can reinforce the rigid, traditional stereotypes that girls should be passive and boys should be assertive. Gender bias can also serve to police and punish those who break from traditionally held ideas about gender. Students who do not present themselves within this feminine and masculine binary can experience difficulty in gaining acceptance from peers and adults, especially when those peers and adults adhere to traditional notions of gender.

The socialization of gender within our schools promotes the notion that girls and boys are not equal. Hegemonic classroom practices reflect societal inequities by reproducing and reinforcing traditional cultural and educational traditions. For example, asking girls and boys to line up by gender affirms that girls and boys should be treated differently. Girls are typically socialized toward the feminine ideal, where girls are praised for being pretty, quiet, and for getting along with others, and boys are encouraged to be physically active, assertive, and to think independently. Assertive behavior in girls is often viewed as disruptive and seen negatively by teachers. Girls are often taught to recognize popularity as being the most important aspect of school second to educational performance and ability.

Gender bias can be implicit or explicit. Elliot Eisner (1979) called the hidden curriculum the “implicit” curriculum, because it is what students learn about the values of the school and the expectations of adults, both of which may be unintended, that are not included in the formal curriculum but that students learn during their school experience. Hidden or implicit curriculums can serve to reinforce existing social inequalities, such as gender bias.

Gender bias in education is implicitly reinforced by textbooks. R. Lesser Blumberg (2015) conducted a study of gender bias in textbooks and found a consistent pattern of bias in textbooks worldwide. These findings included an overall underrepresentation of women and girls; depictions of women and girls, pictorially and narratively, consistently as stereotypical, and focusing on home and domestic roles; women and girls depicted as passive spectators; and women depicted in traditional careers.

Questions for Discussion

Additional Activities