Men & Emotional Expression: Are men really less emotional ...



Sociology | Wiley | Gender Socialization, D___ Name:Before we define gender socialization, it would be helpful to discuss notions of femininity and masculinity. Fill in the chart below with as many keywords as you can think of that are typically associated with “feminine” vs. “masculine.” Do not focus on historical associations, but rather the associations you think are still somewhat prevalent today. Feminine Characteristics / TraitsMasculine Characteristics / TraitsWhy do these stereotypes come to mind very easily (for most people)? Where did these ideas come from? Be specific.Background on Gender SocializationDuring the socialization process, individuals learn the expectations of the society and culture they are a part of. Gender plays a large role in this, regardless of geography. Each culture around the world—despite significant progress in the “gender equality” field in many countries—continues to socialize its young in a highly gendered fashion. Each society expects different attitudes and behaviors from boys/men and girls/women; the extent to which these differences are entrenched in the society varies widely around the globe. Gender socialization is the process of learning the social expectations and attitudes associated with one's sex; boys are raised to conform to the male gender role and girls are raised to conform to the female gender role. Sociologists explain through gender socialization why human males and females behave in different ways: they learn different social roles. Gender socialization occurs through such diverse means as parental attitudes, schools, how peers interact with each other, gendered toys and activities, and mass media.The term gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt psychological identification as a man or woman. Gender expression refers to all of the external characteristics and behaviors that are socially defined as either masculine or feminine, such as dress, grooming, mannerisms, speech patterns, and social interactions. Social or cultural norms can vary widely and some characteristics that may be accepted as masculine, feminine or neutral in one culture may not be assessed similarly in another. Researchers of sociology and psychology believe that biological differences underlie some behavioral differences between males and females, but ascribe greater importance to the ways in which gender identities and expressions are constructed by culture (family, religion, education, media, etc.). Put another way, most contemporary Western psychologists and sociologists argue that the gender component of our identity is mostly constructed by the culture and society we subscribe to or live in. But this is an issue that researchers still debate. The precise role of nature vs. nature has yet to be articulated clearly. To illustrate: There are some significant differences between female and male brains. The language center in the male brain is usually in the dominant (usually left) hemisphere, whereas females use both hemispheres of the brain to process language. This may explain why females seem to have stronger communication skills and relish interpersonal communication more than males and why, on average, girls learn to speak and read earlier than boys. Some would argue, however, that such patterns exist due to the way in which females and males were socialized (i.e. they were taught in ways that encouraged left or right brain thinking). Define gender socialization in your own words:In general, how do contemporary researchers feel about gender and the nature vs. nurture debate? What are some specific ways in which girls might be socialized to develop stronger interpersonal communication skills than men? Think about the contexts of home, school, media, etc. Do you think that these ideas make a strong enough case for the nurture side, or do you still think that nature could be playing a large role? center16700500Videos on Gender SocializationTake notes on the key findings/arguments from each video. Then discuss and record your thoughts/questions:Gender Roles: Interviews with KidsWhat Do Toys Teach About Gender Roles?Deconstructing Your Own Socialization Your task is to think about and reflect on your life experiences to better understand how gender socialization has shaped the person you’ve become, or not become. This might be the first time you’ve systematically considered your own gender identity development. Be as honest as possible. Consider the following questions to help find some answers:What messages did you receive about what it meant to be a boy or a girl? How did your school, family, religion, peer groups, the media, and public life in general, communicate those messages? Did you absorb some of those messages referenced above but reject others? Were you ever ridiculed for doing or saying something that others didn’t consider masculine or feminine enough? Were you ever denied an opportunity because of gender?Have you ever ridiculed someone else for doing something you didn’t consider masculine or feminine enough?Based on the observations you’ve made throughout your life, what happens to boys/men and girls/women who reject cultural norms and values about gender?What does being a girl/woman mean to you? What does being a boy/man mean to you? How masculine or feminine are you? How do you think your peers would describe you? Have you every wished you were more masculine/feminine? How well do you conform to the gender expectations of our culture? Are you happy with the way in which you were gender socialized? What would you change about what occurred or what was emphasized, if you could? Why? Write a journal entry/reflection (2-3 paragraphs) on a sheet of lined paper that addresses the questions above. Consider how you were gender socialized, both directly and indirectly. Attach your writing to this document in your Sociology folder.1552590-3101460047910751460500Tiger Girls on the Soccer Field (2013), by Dr. Hilary Levey Freidman (sociologist) Instructions: Actively read attachment article and complete the questions below. Background: Dr. Freidman, a renowned sociologist, “[s]tudied 95 families with elementary school-age children who were involved in competitive afterschool activities—chess, dance, and soccer” with the purpose of understanding why parents wanted their daughters to get involved in certain activities over others, and how that was tied to class (economics).Vocabulary: 478155034925Gloria Marie Steinem is an American feminist, journalist, and social and political activist, who became nationally recognized as a leader and a spokeswoman for the feminist movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s.0Gloria Marie Steinem is an American feminist, journalist, and social and political activist, who became nationally recognized as a leader and a spokeswoman for the feminist movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s.Title IX: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”Feminist / feminism: The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.Hegemonic: predominant; mainBinary: consisting of or involving twoLucrative: profitableCharlotte, a 9-year-old competitive soccer player, views “tomboy” as a negative label. How did Dr. Freidman come to this conclusion? (p. 102)What is “aggressive femininity”? (p. 102)Why did many parents in this study—notably those from a higher socioeconomic class—want their daughters to express “aggressive femininity”? (pp. 102-3)Fill in the blanks and respond to the question below: Recent studies show that ____ percent of ___________________ businesswomen played ________________________________ in middle and high school. Of female _____________________ executives, ____ percent said they were competitive __________________ during childhood. . . . [P]articipation in high school sports __________________ the likelihood that a girl will attend __________________ . . . and enter previously male-dominated occupations. (p. 103)If you were the parent of a young daughter, would these findings (along with the general argument of this article) impact your child-rearing methods in any way? Why or why not?Do you suspect that the father’s comment from page 104 is common in America today? (“You let a girl beat you!”)Do you think appearance should continue to matter in activities such as dance? Why or why not? (pp. 104-5)Dr. Freidman’s key findings about girls’ activities and familial socioeconomic status are on page 105. Summarize the findings in your own words. What are some of the costs associated with aggressive femininity? (pp. 105-6)Answer one of the following questions: What does socialization in these various afterschool activities—chess, dance, soccer—teach children about their self and place in the social world? OR How does Freidman’s article on children’s participation in afterschool activities contribute to the nature vs. nurture debate? (questions borrowed from p. 106)Kindergarten Lesson Plan: Boys Like, Girls Like, Kids Like (2014), by Ashley Miller (educational administrator and former teacher) Background: More and more elementary school teachers around the country are starting to talk to their students about gender in a way they never have before. As such, they are consciously altering the gender socialization process. Is this a good thing?Instructions: Actively read attachment lesson plan and answer the questions below. Is this a good activity for children in Kindergarten? Why or why not? Do you remember ever learning (directly) about gender when you were in Kindergarten, or at any time in your elementary years? Do you think it would have had any impact on you if you had?Gender — Not Race — is Biggest Factor in Violent Behavior (2005), by Dr. Randy Flood (psychologist) Instructions: Actively read the article below and answer the questions that follow. Since The Grand Rapids Press featured an article on black men killing black men, people have weighed in with their analyses of the problem. They’ve presented a myriad of causes such as poor education, poverty, ineffective parenting, racism, etc., but the most common denominator, male socialization, isn’t discussed. Gender socialization is the process in which young people learn how they are supposed to think, feel, and behave as men and women. There are many causative variables discussed in the analysis of violent criminal behavior, but the one that remains invisible is the toxicity [harmfulness; poisonousness] of male socialization. The fact is that men, not women, across all socio-economic levels, races, families, and cultures are the primary perpetrators of violent crime. This illuminates the power of gender socialization. If poor education was the primary cause of black criminal behavior, then why are most of our homicides committed by men? If poverty is the primary cause of violent black criminal behavior then why don’t we have as many females in prison as men? If a dysfunctional family with ineffective parenting, abuse and neglect is the primary cause then why do men account for 90 percent of the domestic violence offender population? If racism is the primary impetus for black male criminal behavior, then why are white males committing violent crime at about the same male to female ratio as their black counterparts? If “kids are killing kids” in the school shootings then why have all of the shooters been male students? In addition, most of these boys were also white students in intact families attending good suburban schools. Male socialization is the missing link in the analyses of black male violent crime and violent crime in general. Boys aren’t born brutes or beasts genetically programmed to be violent. Rigid male socialization is a social toxin to men’s humanity and the most vulnerable in our society will manifest symptoms of the toxin. Think about air pollution. Air pollution is a physical toxin to asthmatic patients. These patients become symptomatic, manifesting complications in breathing when in polluted climates. Individuals raised in environments with racism, poverty, dysfunctional families, unemployment, and poor education end up psychologically asthmatic, vulnerable to social toxins such as male socialization. These boys feel vulnerable, powerless, and marginalized. However, the male code tells them to “tough it out,” “suck it up,” and “don’t talk about it.” Manliness is equated with being tough, strong, aggressive, powerful, and always in control. Boys get called names such as weak, wuss, or sissy when they behave outside the masculine box. They get disrespected and ostracized. The pressure to fit in is huge. The result is that boys squash their humanity. Men look for ways to prop themselves up to appear more powerful, more intimidating, more competitive, essentially, more manly. Affluent white boys may be able to do this with money, cars, houses, degrees, and social status, while those less fortunate may be left to prove their masculinity with violence, guns and even murder. In effect, the male socialization process teaches men to externalize painful emotions and avoid states of vulnerability. Consequently, some men act out their rage and pain onto others in acts of criminal violence. After all, to kill someone is the ultimate act of control and power. We also don’t talk about the broader impact of male training on our boys. It is frightening to see how poorly our boys are adapting and fitting into society. Not only are they more violent, but also they are less likely than girls to go to college, more likely to drop out of high school or be placed in special education, and twice as likely than girls to die in a car accident. We need to raise our boys to be more fit, more humane. If we give them permission to talk, feel, and emotionally connect to others they are less likely to lose their souls in oppressive conditions. The enemies of violence are empathy, compassion, sensitivity and humility; so let’s encourage this in boys too. We need to stop leaving the issue of male socialization out of our discussions on violent behavior. And, let’s work on socializing our boys to stay in touch with their humanity. Then, and only then, do boys have a chance to refrain from violent behavior in difficult circumstances and a challenging world. What do you see as the purpose of Dr. Flood’s article? How does Dr. Flood link male socialization to violence? What is your reaction to this article?What Does It Mean to 'Be a Man'? (2015), by Sutheshna Mani of Huffington PostInstructions: Actively read the article below and then create two of your own questions that relate to its content. paolomartinezphotography via Getty Images"The sex that oppresses another sex is not a free sex."I heard this quote in an Africana intellectual thought class that I dropped in on, and it's a quote I can't stop thinking about. There is no doubt that historically, oppressive patriarchal societies have caused mayhem to women in the past and today, but do we ever think to ourselves, were men truly "free" in these systems, despite being the privileged sex? In my opinion, no.Just as the masculine gender constructs puts down females, its first victims, are in fact males, starting with the way they are raised. In a famous TED talk, Tony Porter described the discrepancy in the way he handled his daughter crying versus his son. If his daughter cried, he consoled her with reassurance of comfort and protection. This is not however, how he dealt with his son's tears -- he paid no heed to the reasons for his son's sadness. Rather, he sternly told him to buck up, wipe his tears and act his gender. Many young boys are often socialized this way, into what Porter described as "The Man Box," which entails the following: little fear, little weakness and emotion, physically strong, heterosexual, confident, wealthy and dominant. This subsequently concludes that the antithesis of these qualities are "feminine." Women are therefore relegated to weaker status, and gay men are considered failures as men.When we require these unrealistic standards of men, we leave young men with fragile egos. It's to the point that having their authority questioned, having a female partner make more money, or mere association with feminine qualities is equal to emasculation. Suppressing the humanity of males leaves them emotionally illiterate. And, we wonder why males are generally viewed as more violent [and commit more acts of violence]; anger and rage are acceptable expressions of [masculine] emotion. . . . Remarks like "Stop acting like a female," "Don't be a pu**y", or "He runs/plays like a girl" are far too familiar to us. If it's the worst crime for a man to be called a woman, it begs the question, what are we then teaching young boys about women? When a man becomes more and more compelled to emulate the qualities of an ideal alpha male, it directly affects his perceptions of women and thus how he views and treats them. As a little girl I feel like I was socialized into this worldview that I should inherently fear men, a notion validated by many male figures in my life. I fear that being blasé [nonchalant, unconcerned] about painting this image of males is what perpetuates certain "boys will be boys" excuses when boys commit acts of violence. Many instances of women, particularly in the army, coming forward to commanding officers about sexual assault have often resulted in the "well what did you expect to happen?" justification. We shouldn't expect this of men. And men shouldn't accept this excuse, because when they do, they are acquiescing to a backward world view that they are savage by nature. In my opinion, there lacks in-depth conversation about masculinity and its effects on adolescent boys through their journey into manhood. . . . You create the question:You create the question: Men & Emotional Expression: Are men really less emotional than women? (2014), by Dr. Jerry Kennard (psychologist) Adapted from Lee, C & Glynn Owens, R (2002), The Psychology of Men's Health | Open University PressInstructions: Actively read the article below and answer the question that follows. Over the past decade, the effects of emotional expression on health, and the differences between men and women in this regard, have become more widely understood. An increasing body of research shows the importance of emotional expression on emotional well-being and, while the exact mechanism between emotional expression and health is not entirely clear, the link appears to exist. Men are traditionally thought of as being less emotional than women but the evidence points more towards a situation where men tend to show emotions that are bad for them and the people around them.Here is a quick overview of some of the research findings about men, their emotional expressions and their pared to Women:there is substantial evidence to show that men have more difficulty in expressing their emotions and exert greater controls over the expression of emotions.men spend more time ruminating [deliberating, reflecting] over negative emotions.men share their emotions with far fewer.men express emotions with less intensity.men use less emotional language and fewer 'emotion' words.behavior seems less affected by expressions of emotion.men are more likely to under-report negative feelings.men are more willing to express emotions likely to be viewed as demonstrating power or control (for example: pride, anger and jealousy).The Differences Explained:Most theorists agree that biological differences between men and women cannot explain differences in emotional expression. In terms of the supposed lack of emotion in men, a more plausible explanation is the number and extent of social experiences men encounter from childhood that inhibit emotional expression (gender socialization). It has been pointed out that men and women live in different worlds when it comes to emotional expression. From early childhood most boys are exposed to fewer emotion-oriented conversations and are not encouraged to express emotions verbally. Yet, for example, the expression of rage if personal possessions or status is threatened, is seen not only as typically male, but in some situations encouraged and admired. The point is that men appear to experience exactly the same emotions as women but their expression is often very different.How does this article excerpt weigh in on the nature vs. nurture debate? center25284000right1206500Ted Talk: Teach Girls Bravery, Not Perfection, by Reshma Saujani (2016) Background: We're raising our girls to be perfect, and we're raising our boys to be brave, says Reshma Saujani, the founder of Girls Who Code. Saujani has taken up the charge to socialize young girls to take risks and learn to program — two skills they need to move society forward. To truly innovate, we cannot leave behind half of our population, she says. "I need each of you to tell every young woman you know to be comfortable with imperfection."Through her nonprofit, Girls Who Code, Reshma Saujani initiates young women into the tech world. Her goal: one million women in computer science by 2020.Fill in the blanks: When Saujani ran for Congress, it was the first time she did something truly _________________, where she didn’t worry about ____________________________. How does Saujani describe the differences between how girls and boys are socialized (raised)?Fill in the blank: The bravery _________________ is why women are underrepresented in STEM, in C-suites*, in boardrooms, in Congress, and pretty much everywhere you look. *C-suites is a slang term to used to collectively refer to a corporation's most important senior executives; C-Suite gets its name because top senior executives' titles tend to start with the letter C, for chief, as in chief executive officer, chief operating officer and chief information officer.What did psychologist Carol Dweck find in her 1980s study of 5th graders, working on an assignment that was too difficult for them? Fill in the blanks: _________________ will apply for a job if they meet only ____% of the qualifications, but women will apply only if they meet ____% of the qualifications. This is usually invoked as evidence that, well, women need a little more confidence. But I think it's evidence that women have been socialized to aspire to perfection, and they're overly _________________.What did the University of Columbia professor tell Saujani about the difference between male and female students that come to him for help? According to Saujani, why is rethinking female gender socialization important for the U.S. economy? 3692105833900Mean Girls Are Not Mean Genes (2013), by Dr. Agustin Fuentes (psychologist) Aggression in girls in our society is a growing problem and many young women are paying a price for it (link is external).? And now, studying these “mean girls” has taken a new turn: a group of psychologists can now explain why females are “*Bi*chy” (link is external) to one another: it’s in their genes.I am not kidding. “Bi*chy” has been used as a scientific category (link is external) and “slu*-shaming” has been experimentally examined for its evolutionary roots. There is a growing sense amongst a cluster of researchers (link is external) that female sniping aggression, the indirect and biting put-downs and snide remarks that girls and women can use on each other in our society, reflects a kind of competition between them for mates and status—an evolutionary gambit that shows females can be just as competitive as males…at least that is how some researchers are spinning it.The basic premise here is that women gain the most by controlling access to sex itself (and thus reproduction) and that they do so by aggressively manipulating others (males and females). In this view the social control of female sexuality has deep evolutionary roots and is largely due to females competing to control one another. This flies in the face of the anthropological and sociological argument that male dominance in political and economic spheres is a core factor in the various patterns of societal structures that create social control of female sexuality.? This evolved female competition view is best laid out by the psychologists Baumeister and Twenge who argued (in a review article (link is external)) that “the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.” They figure this is “a good reason for women to suppress female sexuality because restricting the supply of sex will raise the price (in terms of commitment, attention, and other resources) that women can get for their sexual favors.”? In this perspective basic supply and demand (market economy) arguments appear to go hand in hand perfectly with our evolutionary “nature.”Tracy Vaillancourt (link is external), the lead research on the “bi*chiness” study and related projects, argues that “Human females have a particular proclivity for using indirect aggression, which is typically directed at other females, especially attractive and sexually available females, in the context of intrasexual competition for mates. Indirect aggression is an effective intrasexual competition strategy. It is associated with a diminished willingness to compete on the part of victims and with greater dating and sexual behaviour among those who perpetrate the aggression.” So the bottom line is that females are bi*chy to other females when they: a) see those females as a threat to their men or potential prize sexual partners, and/or b) when they want a leg up in the amazingly competitive world where females seek high-value males who will father their children. It is interesting to note that men are left out of this scenario, even though data suggest (link is external) that adult men and women, while varying in many aspects of aggression, have pretty much the same rates of indirect aggression.As is increasingly the case in psychological approaches that invoke the term “evolution,” there is a quest to find the true (meaning biological) basis for human nature in day-to-day behavior, especially in the arena of sex and gender differences (often ignoring similarities). This approach can often result in intellectual myopia [prejudice, bias].? When asking about human behavior one must be prepared to ask whether there might be other, equally valid explanations for why females might act in derogatory or aggressive ways to each other—“real” answers need not only be derived via invoking naturally selected goals from our evolutionary past.There are indeed numerous studies that show that women (and girls) do snipe at one another and that this often has to do with social competition. For example, Dr. Vaillancourt has a fascinating book chapter entitled ““Tripping the Prom Queen”: Female intrasexual competition and indirect aggression”—people do (on occasion) trip prom queens, but the concept of “prom queen” and proms in general, school dances, dating, and high school are all extremely recent and complex social categories laden with perceptions, histories and realities of a particular culture. To ignore the possibilities that these very cultural processes and structures themselves can exert forces on how and why we do what we do is to treat human behavior as if it is all just a gloss for some basal instincts. Just because one can create a hypothetical connection between a behavior and some potential impact on reproductive success doesn’t mean that one has a viable evolutionary explanation for that behavior.?Evolution matters, but so do our daily lives, and our social, political and economic histories and gender socialization. We cannot assume that natural selection will provide the explanation for any given human behavior without also considering the myriad of other possibilities. Evolutionary processes are not more “real” than cultural, historical and behavioral ones. Being human is complicated and not always best explained by competition and sex (even though sometimes it is). To paraphrase Einstein, we need to look for what is, not what we think should be.We cannot lose sight that most of these studies on female competition and aggressiveness are conducted primarily on undergraduate students in western nations (mostly USA, Canada and the UK). This is also true for the vast majority of all psychological studies on which we base evolutionary explanations of human psychology. This is particularly problematic as we know that these students are NOT ideal and normative representatives (link is external) of the more than 7 billion humans on the planet (physiologically, experientially, economically, historically, etc…). We need to take this, and our own complex lives, into account and use caution in making evolutionary assumptions about why we do what we do.As the anthropologist Ashley Montagu sagely cautioned, “It is essential that we not base our image of ourselves on false foundations. What is involved here is not simply the understanding of the nature of humanity, but also the image of humanity that grows out of that understanding.”Explain how some psychologists are explaining bi*chiness by the evolution (“nature”) argument. Do you think there is any validity in these arguments? Why or why not?Why does Dr. Fuentes somewhat disagree with the psychologists who make the evolution argument? Do you think there is any validity in his arguments? Why or why not? How Not to Raise a Mean Girl, by Kelly Wallace (2014), from CNNI am one of the lucky ones. I didn't meet my first "mean girl" until freshman year of college. Before I met her -- let's call her "Z" -- I lived life assuming that people would for the most part treat me the way I treated them. Oh, how wrong I was. Z was close to my freshman roommate, who was the opposite of a mean girl, but whenever Z was around, it was clear that a) she had no time for me and b) I was not welcome in anything she was doing. To this day, whenever I think of mean girls, I think back to Z and wonder what led her to be so miserable to me and probably other girls, too.I find myself thinking about that question a lot lately as I watch my daughters, now 6 and 8, negotiate female friendships. Sadly, I have already seen mean girl qualities in some girls in their peer group, and my kids are still years away from middle school!Educational psychologist Lori Day says the problem is growing worse with the increasing power of the Internet and today's hyperfeminine girl culture, so we're seeing more mean girls today and at younger ages. Here's where we as parents need to slam on the brakes. If the problem is getting worse and it's starting with girls as young as elementary school, what can we do about it? How can we avoid raising mean girls? Day, who is out with the powerful new book "Her Next Chapter: How Mother-Daughter Book Clubs Can Help Girls Navigate Malicious Media, Risky Relationships, Girl Gossip and So Much More," says mothers really have to "model being allies to other women.""When girls see their mother gossiping with a female friend about another female friend, putting down someone because of how they look or their weight ... it's modeling the wrong thing for girls," she said. She recommends being explicit with young girls about this philosophy. "You can say, 'I really try not to tear other women down. I try to build them up,' " said Day, who wrote the book along with her recent college graduate daughter and devoted an entire chapter to dealing with mean girls.Louise Sattler, a school psychologist, sign language educator and mom of two grown children in Los Angeles, knows all too well about mean girls. When she was in high school, one girl, we'll call her "C," seemed to have it out for her. Thirty years later, at her high school reunion, C continued to be a bully, even requesting that Sattler not sit at her table. (Sattler, you'll be happy to know, did not back down. She planted her purse and her body down at that table, and C stormed off.) "I always felt kind of sorry for her, frankly, because I knew she didn't come from a very happy household," she said. Girls like C are always looking for something better and for recognition and validation, she added. "And so I think the way to combat mean girls is to first just validate your daughter. They may not be the cheerleader. They may not grow up to be the smartest. They may be a little chunky, but that's OK." Mean girls often have a low self-esteem and "a feeling of mistrust and negative competition with other girls," said Anea Bogue, an author, educator and self-esteem expert who focuses her energies on helping girls.People who truly feel good about themselves don't expend a ton of energy trying to knock others down, said Bogue, author of "9 Ways We're Screwing Up Our Girls and How We Can Stop." "The most important thing we can do as parents to avoid raising a mean girl is instill self-value and challenge status quo messages of female inferiority and mistrust between women, a norm girls learn about from the time they are little from a variety of sources, including fairy tales," said the mom of two girls, who recently launched an anti-bullying program in the U.S. and Hong Kong called Be a REALgirl, not a MEANgirl.Annette Lanteri, a mom of two girls in Bayport, New York, switched schools for her elder daughter in part because of the way she was being treated by some mean girls. The key in stopping this behavior, she says is teaching children the concept of empathy. "Having the ability to step into someone's shoes and use that information when you interact with people is an amazing tool," Lanteri said. "A girl with that, empathizes with others, especially her peers, (and) will never become a mean girl."What I also heard from the many parents I spoke with is that the golden rule that we all grew up with -- treat others as you would want them to treat you -- is perhaps even more important today. Michelle Staruiala has been passing that philosophy down to her three kids, including her 13-year-old daughter, their entire lives. It works, she said. Her daughter hasn't had issues with mean girls, has been known to stand up for friends who are being bullied and feels guilty if she ever treats someone the wrong way. "To this day, my daughter will say, 'Mom, I shouldn't have said that. I feel bad I said this about my friend,' " said Staruiala, of Saskatchewan.Then again, maybe we're going about this mean girl policing all wrong.Amy MacClain, lead facilitator and program developer for Soul Shoppe, an interactive program focusing on helping schools and students combat bullying, says we should banish the term entirely. Saddling a kid with the mean girl tag means judging her in the same way she may be judging others, said MacClain, who is also the founder of a program that helps parents bully-proof their kids. "If you turn and go, 'She's a mean girl. You better go and play with someone else,' you're teaching your child not to deal with the problem, not to see what might be the cause and not to take care of themselves." Truly stopping mean girl behavior demands a lot of parental introspection. After all, what parent would want to admit their daughter is one? "Part of it is we're just so blamed as parents ... for the normal things that kids can do. That's why we don't want to take any responsibility," said MacClain, who has an 11-year-son. But denial isn't going to help anyone, parents and parenting experts say, so the best thing any mom of a mean girl can do is start validating her daughter and connecting with her, even on the playground."When there are girls and they're being mean to one another, get involved," MacClain said. "Go to the park where they play and jump into that play and lead it for a little while so that all the girls feel safer and they're having fun so you're not directing it. You're just jumping in and leading fun."Make a list of methods discussed in the article to avoid raising a “mean girl.” Add your own additional ideas as well. center31648200 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download