An article in our local paper bemoaned the "current" state of our girls. The article spoke of a rash of new sociological studies that are about to be published and went on to applaud our new willingness to discuss the negative aspects of female behavior. I was steamed and sent the following letter to the editor:
Jane Eisner's piece on girls in Sunday's paper, "Girls will be (mean) girls, and maybe that's part of maturing" (3/24), reminds me of the classic nature vs. nurture argument that inevitably lets adults off the hook for their roles and responsibility toward children. Can girls be mean? Has every woman experienced betrayal at the hands of another female? Instead of asking ourselves these seemingly rhetorical questions, why don't we step up to the plate and look at what we are doing to girls in our families, schools and in the media? What messages are we modeling when a major network launches new shows like The Bachelor, where women get to "compete" for the prized eligible man? How many diet, hair color and make up commercials does the average girl see in a week, a month, a year? Why are assertive males viewed as leaders, while assertive females are cast as loud, aggressive, unpleasant, unladylike and undesirable? Contrast these messages with the number of positive female role models we promote in our textbooks and schools, there's no comparison. Girls are not all "sugar and spice," and never have been, but they are also not inherently mean and evil. There is nothing "new and noteworthy" about the willingness to discuss the alleged inherently negative traits of females. Tales of evil, scheming, "curious" women like Eve, Pandora, the wicked stepmother, and the rest, are part of our collective consciousness. Our girls, and our boys, will become the best that they can be when we give them the room to grow and the supports they deserve. The problem is far from new, and the solution isn't a big mystery, we just need to face up to our roles in the process.