PROVIDING REDUCTIONS IN GENDER BULLYING IN K-3 USING THE
SECOND STEP: A VIOLENCE PREVENTION CURRICULUM
Ann Munsee
B.A., California State University, Humboldt, 1991
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Gender Equity Studies)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
PROVIDING REDUCTIONS IN GENDER BULLYING IN K-3 USING THE
SECOND STEP: A VIOLENCE PREVENTION CURRICULUM
A Project
by
Ann Munsee
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Frank R. Lilly, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Ann Munsee
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the Project.
, Associate Chair
Rita M. Johnson, Ed.D.
Date
Department of Teacher Education
iii
Abstract
of
PROVIDING REDUCTIONS IN GENDER BULLYING IN K-3 USING THE
SECOND STEP: A VIOLENCE PREVENTION CURRICULUM
by
Ann Munsee
Statement of Problem
The Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum (Committee for Children,
2005) lacks a gendered harassment component. According to Harris Interactive and
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the absence of gender is problematic.
For students, the second and third most reported forms of harassment are related to
their perceived or actual sexual orientation and their measure of masculinity or
femininity. Aside from the high incidence of occurrence, gendered harassment has
been linked to school-site violence. Kimmel and Mahler (2003) analyzed school
shootings and found that all of the perpetrators reported being victims of homophobic
harassment. In addition to physical violence, gendered harassment has caused social
and psychological problems. Students who were harassed due to gender expression
reported feeling disconnected and unsafe at school. This often resulted in attendance
problems and lower academic achievement. Depression and suicidal thoughts and
plans doubled for students who were harassed based on their actual or perceived
iv
sexual orientation (California Safe Schools Coalition & University of California
Davis, 4-H Center for Youth Development, 2004). The reinforcement of traditional
gender norms is often a motive of gendered harassment (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003;
Pollack, 1999). The enforcement of traditional gender roles reduces honest selfexpression, inhibits the ability for girls and boys to fully develop an authentic self
(Brown, Chesney-Lind, & Stein, 2007) and maintains the hierarchal structure of males
holding power over females (Epstein, 2001; Meyer, 2006).
Sources of Data
An outcome of the project was lessons developed to address gendered
harassment. The three lessons are: Lesson One: Respecting Diversity; Lesson Two:
Name-Calling; and Lesson Three: Gender-Biased Comments. The lessons are
designed for elementary schools that have adopted the 2002 Second Step: A Violence
Prevention (SSAVP) curriculum distributed by Committee for Children (2005).
Specifically, the lessons are an addendum to be used with the second grade SSAVP
curriculum kit, at Del Paso Manor Elementary School in the San Juan Unified School
District, Sacramento, California. The lessons are scripted, follow the same format and
incorporate the same teaching strategies as SSAVP.
Conclusions Reached
A review of the literature suggested key elements to be incorporated into antibullying lessons in order to prevent future incidences of gendered harassment.
Respecting diversity, eliminating name-calling and responding to sexist comments
v
were recommendations found throughout the literature. In order to address gendered
harassment, teachers need to be prepared and provided with lessons, curriculum and
training. The three lessons created are a starting point for the second grade teachers at
Del Paso Manor Elementary School to begin to address the problem of gendered
harassment in schools.
, Committee Chair
Frank R. Lilly, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Project ....................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Project................................................................................ 4
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 5
2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ........................................................... 7
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 7
Theories of Gender Development .................................................................... 7
Theories Related to Gendered Harassment .................................................... 10
Absence of Gender in Elementary Anti-Bullying Curriculums ..................... 18
Reasons for Addressing Gendered Harassment in Elementary School .......... 21
The Link Between Gendered Harassment and School Violence .................... 22
Teacher Responses to Gendered Harassment ................................................. 22
Ill-Equipped Teachers .................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 23
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 25
Setting ............................................................................................................. 25
Participants ..................................................................................................... 25
vii
Instruments ..................................................................................................... 25
Design ............................................................................................................. 26
Procedures ...................................................................................................... 28
4. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 29
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 29
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 29
Recommendations .......................................................................................... 30
Appendix. Lesson Plans ........................................................................................... 33
References .................................................................................................................. 41
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Project
The intent of this project is to analyze the types and probable causes of
gendered harassment and to create age appropriate lessons to combat gendered
harassment for early elementary students aged six to eight years. The lessons included
as part of this project are designed for use with the 2002 Second Step: A Violence
Prevention Curriculum (SSVPC) currently being implemented in the San Juan Unified
School District, in Sacramento, California. Currently, the SSVPC does not directly
address gendered harassment. The project’s three lessons address the gender related
issues of: diversity acceptance, name-calling, and gender-biased comments to be used
with the SSVPC for grade two.
The California State Legislature has mandated that a school environment free
of gender-based discrimination is a right that all students share. The California
Education Code, Article 3, Prohibition of Discrimination, Section 220, extends the
hate crimes law, Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, into the schools. The code states
that no person shall be discriminated against due to disability, gender, nationality,
race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. The California Student Safety and
Violence Prevention Act, AB 537 (2000) extends protections against discrimination
for students and staff as a result of perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender
identity. In 2007, additional legislation was passed. The Safe Place to Learn Act, AB
394, provides information and guidance to school districts and the California
2
Department of Education to fully enact AB 537. Additionally, the Student Civil Rights
Act, SB 777 (2008), updates all former antidiscrimination laws in the public schools to
include the most current categories of discrimination. In order to reduce or eliminate
harassment and discrimination against students based on their gender identity, gender
expression and actual or perceived sexual orientation, lessons have developed to be
used with the second grade Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum.
Statement of the Problem
The Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum lacks a gendered
harassment component. The omission of gender is problematic because the second and
third most common forms of harassment reported by students is related to their
perceived or actual sexual orientation and their measure of masculinity or femininity.
These two forms of harassment are only second to harassment based on appearance
(Harris Interactive & Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, 2005). The incidence
of harassment related to perceived or actual sexual orientation has increased most
significantly when compared to other forms of sexual harassment according to data
that has been gathered since 1993. In 1993, 51% of students reported knowing
someone who had been called gay or lesbian as compared to 61% in 2001. This is a
powerful statistic considering that most of the other forms of sexual harassment either
have remained the same or have decreased (Harris Interactive for American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 2001).
The absence of gender issues in anti-bullying curriculums is particularly
alarming due to recent research that has demonstrated a link between school violence
3
and gendered harassment. Specifically, research shows that harassment related to
gender is more likely to result in violence. An analysis of school shootings found that
all of the school shooters reported being victims of homophobic harassment (Kimmel
& Mahler, 2003). Researchers believe that ignoring the relationship between gendered
harassment and violence prevents schools from creating curriculum that can be used as
an effective tool to end school violence (Kimmel & Mahler; Stein, 2007). In addition
to the high correlation between gendered harassment and the incidence of school-site
violence, researchers have also identified lower academic achievement as an outcome
related to gendered harassment. Harassed students feel unsafe and disconnected from
school, factors that likely contribute to attendance problems and lower academic
achievement. Depression and suicidal plans and thoughts double for students who are
harassed based on actual or perceived sexual orientation compared to students who are
not (California Safe Schools Coalition & University of California Davis, 4-H Center
for Youth Development, 2004).
Gendered harassment is often carried out to reinforce traditional gender norms
(Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Pollack, 1999). Encouraging traditional gender roles
reduces honest self-expression and inhibits the ability of each child to fully develop an
authentic self. In an effort to conform to traditional female norms, girls minimize their
contributions in the classroom, which often leads to feelings of loss of control and
invisibility (Brown, Chesney-Lind, & Stein, 2007). Boys, on the other hand, are
expected to express masculinity by acting tough and in charge regardless of how they
really feel (Pollack). Reinforcing masculinity for boys and femininity for girls can
4
have negative consequences for both sexes (Rivers, Duncan, & Besag, 2007), but girls
are more often harassed because of their gender than are boys (Harris Interactive &
GLSEN, 2005). In addition, Young and Sweeting (2004) reported that femininity is
associated with negative self-esteem in girls whereas masculinity is associated with
high self-esteem for both girls and boys. The lower status associated with being a
young female (Powlishta, 2000) increases the incidence of depression in adolescent
girls (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994).
Significance of the Project
In California, legislation was proposed in 2009 that mandates schools to
actively and seriously respond to students who are harassed based on their gender
expression and sexual orientation. The proposed legislation has not yet been signed
into law and, as of April 2010, there is no Senate bill pending. The Safe Schools
Improvement Act, H.R. 2262, would require schools and districts to create codes of
conduct prohibiting bullying and harassment, including bullying and harassment based
on sexual orientation and gender identity. Nationally, there is a bill in Congress called
The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010, HR 4530. This bill would end
discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, much
like the Civil Rights Act did for racial discrimination, and Title IX did to address
discrimination based on gender. It has yet to be signed into law. Without legal codes
of conduct for schools to address harassment, it seems critical that lessons and
curriculums be developed and implemented to address and reduce gendered
harassment in schools.
5
Definition of Terms
There are three primary characteristics that describe bullying behavior:
aggressive behavior with intent to harm, repeated and over time and an imbalance of
power (Olweus, 1999, part I). Bullying is currently addressed in elementary school
curriculums; however, bullying that is specifically related to gender is absent from
most of the curriculums written for elementary schools. Meyer (2006) defines
gendered harassment as, “any behaviour that serves to police and reinforce the
traditional gender roles of heterosexual masculinity and femininity, such as bullying,
name-calling, social ostracism and acts of violence” (p. 43). Harassment due to nonconforming gendered expression, harassment rooted in homophobic feelings, and
harassment designed to reinforce traditional gender roles are all components of
gendered harassment.
Meyers (2006) feels an important first step in addressing gendered harassment
is to first understand the behaviors that characterize the three types of harassment:
harassment based on non-conforming gender expression, homophobic harassment, and
heterosexual harassment. Harassment based on non-conforming gender expression is
harassment targeted at people due to behaviors that are perceived as not conforming to
traditional notions of gender identification. Homophobic harassment includes
negative, hostile, or threatening behavior that is directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual,
or transgendered people. Heterosexual harassment is sexual harassment designed to
reinforce traditional heterosexual gender roles (Meyer). The term bullying was
deliberately replaced with harassment for reasons explained in Chapter 2.
6
Gender is related to different social constructs. The University of California at
Berkeley Gender Equity Resource Center (2010) provides definitions of terms related
to gender. The first term is gender. Gender is a socially created system that assigns
qualities of masculinity and femininity to people. Gender characteristics are fluid, can
evolve over time, and are different between cultures.
The term gender identity refers to the gender that people perceive themselves
as. This also includes people who refuse to use gender to label themselves. Gender
identity is often inaccurately associated with sexual orientation; however, gender
identity is not indicative of sexual orientation. In other words, a feminine man is not
necessarily a gay man.
Gender non-conforming or gender variant is to display nontraditional gender
traits that are not typically associated with the person’s biological sex. An example is
masculine behavior or appearance in a female. Culture determines what is considered
nonconforming or variant.
Sex is a term used to define a person based on their biological anatomy and
chromosomes. Although sex is considered biologically determined, social ideas and
views about a person’s sex create cultural influences as well.
Gender roles are masculine and feminine expectations of a person based on
their biological sex. The social and cultural norms that are associated with being male
or female influence the way people behave.
7
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Introduction
The key areas of research explored for this project were gender and harassment
or bullying. Within those broad concepts, the focus narrowed to investigate the
research specifically related to gender and its role in harassment or bullying. The
review of literature began with the two main theories of gender development:
socialization theory and evolutionary theory. Research was then conducted on the
three types of gendered harassment and how they are manifested in schools:
homophobic harassment, harassment based on non-conforming gender expression, and
heterosexual harassment. An absence of information related to addressing gendered
harassment in elementary schools led to research to find out about the absence. The
final area of research covered for this project was to highlight the reasons gendered
harassment should be addressed in early elementary school.
Theories of Gender Development
Socialization Theory
Understanding the main theories of gender development is important for
addressing gendered harassment. There are two main theories of gender development:
socialization theory and evolutionary theory. The socialization theory states that
gender identification occurs as a result of a process of socialization that begins
primarily within the family structure and then expands outward to include additional
environmental influences (Cherlin, 1996). Socialization theory relies on the idea that
8
gender identification is a learned behavior and therefore comes from a cognitive
function. In other words, as opposed to evolutionary theory that emanates from a
biological determinist perspective described later in this chapter, socialization theory
relies on the ability of children to learn. Initially using perception to categorize, the
ability to identify gender by category is cemented once language acquisition occurs.
Socialization during childhood, as it relates to gender, is seen as a way to
prepare children for their roles as adults, supporting children’s development as they
integrate into the culture within which gender norms are contextualized (Maccoby,
1998). Maccoby notes there are two distinct means through which socialization
occurs, direct socialization and indirect socialization. Direct socialization is
characterized by direct teaching, which uses positive and negative reinforcement to
illicit desirable behaviors. Indirect socialization involves learning through observation
and modeling, also known as self-socialization. The self-socialization hypothesis
suggests that in addition to external social pressures, children initiate their own gender
identification and then integrate the socialization process with that self-initiated
understanding of gender in order to render their own interpretations of gender
(Maccoby).
Thorne (1993) was influential in challenging the limitations of the socialization
theory based on her studies of gender development in elementary school classrooms.
Thorne’s research led her to suggest that children are more active participants in their
gender development than prior gender socialization and gender development theorists
allowed for. Socialization theory assumes that the social pressures put upon children
9
create definitions of gender, reinforcing stereotypical masculine or feminine traits in
children as if the children were not living their own lives. The assumption of
socialization theory includes the notion that children are responding to the influence of
adults, rather than relying on any other gender-identification markers that may
emanate from their independent experiences as individuals.
Research conducted by Jacklin and Maccoby (1978) illustrates additional
shortcomings to the theory of socialization. Jacklin and Maccoby’s research shows
that gender behavior is affected by the gender of the group in which the interaction is
taking place. Jacklin and Maccoby’s work is related to Judith Harris’ (1995) theory of
group socialization. Harris’ theory suggests that parents socialize their children who in
turn socialize other children. Children maintain the behaviors they were taught and
eliminate or modify behaviors not accepted by their peer groups (Harris).
Evolutionary Theory
A second theory related to gender development in children is evolutionary
theory, which arises from the notion that there is a biological component to gender
identification. Maccoby’s (1998) explanation is that evolutionary theory treats male
and female children as subspecies for whom gender identification is viewed in the
context of which traits are most successful for the evolution of the species. In this
sense, gender identification is based on the idea that individuals within the subspecies,
as well as the subspecies as a group, will adapt behaviors that “maximize each
individual’s inclusive fitness” (p. 95). The definition of inclusive fitness is tied to the
theory that only those traits and characteristics that allow the species to continue and
10
develop are valued. Hence, for men, the priority is impregnating as many females as
possible; and for women, the value is based on child rearing so that children mature
into adulthood and grow the species. Characteristics that support these goals, which
are based on gender identification, are then valued and reinforced by the group
through play and within the context of group interactions (Maccoby).
Gender development theories are important to consider given the target age of
the children this project seeks to address, six to eight years of age. A key factor is this
age group’s preference for same sex play. This preference begins around the age of
three and becomes strongest by the ages of eight to eleven (Maccoby, 1998). Another
factor is the influence of peer groups on gender development (Harris, 1995). Also of
note is Thorne’s (1993) suggestion that children play an active role in their own
gender development. In addition to understanding the way children learn, or express
gender, is the need to understand harassment related to gender issues.
Theories Related to Gendered Harassment
Moral Disengagement Theory
Moral disengagement theory is one useful context to consider when analyzing
gendered harassment. According to the theory of moral disengagement, perpetrators
justify the violence against victims by identifying the victims as threats to strict
societal gender norms. This process of rationalizing their behavior includes justifying
the perpetrator’s deviant behavior, ignoring or minimizing the effects of the actions of
the perpetrator on the victim, and engaging in acts that dehumanize the victim and
assign blame to the victim. Blaming and dehumanizing the victim has the most
11
powerful impact on victims when compared to all the other aspects of moral
disengagement. It was found that males had a higher rate of disengagement when
compared to females. (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996).
Downward Comparison Theory
Downward comparison theory is based on the principle that people can
improve their feelings about themselves by comparing themselves with people less
fortunate. Downward comparison can function as a means to elevate self-feelings for
someone who has been socially weakened. This sometimes occurs at the expense
another less fortunate person (Wills, 1981). Downward comparison behaviors can be
elevated in a competitive school environment. Students in competition to be the best
may aggressively pursue their high academic or social status at the expense of other
students. In cases where social status is weakened or threatened, a student may strike
out against another student, often with the use of verbal or physical attacks (Rivers et
al., 2007).
Attachment Theory
Gendered harassment can also be viewed through Tharinger’s (2008) work on
attachment theory as explicated by Bowlby (1980). Bowlby believes humans rely on
an innate attachment, particularly during times of stress or fear. This attachment
increases the instance of survival by promoting close proximity to caregivers, thus
increasing safety. Tharinger broadens the attachment theory by extending it outside of
the familial realm and applying it to all significant relationships. When specifically
looking at adolescents and attachment, the fear of peer and societal rejection can be
12
devastating. Being rejected or perceived outside the norm can sometimes result in
violence due to pressure to strike out against those who reject or may reject
(Tharinger).
A study analyzing interviews of boys, ages 11 to 14 years old, found that boys
have a fear of being laughed at and will go to great lengths to suppress their true
feelings. The authors of this study note the connection between the boys’ fear of
laughter directed at them and the resultant use of violence (Phoenix, Frosh, &
Pattman, 2003). Additionally, Pollack (1999) correlates the existence of violence to
the feelings of disconnection experienced by boys. He suggested that boys use
violence to ward off shame. They use violence as an offensive tactic, hurting others
who may potentially hurt them or hurting others to gain social status.
Perceptions of gender identification can be a reason children are rejected.
Boys, in particular, participate in gauging and monitoring each other’s behavior and if
the behavior is perceived as too feminine, then the boys respond with bullying in order
to reduce or eliminate the feminine behavior (Nayak & Kehily, 1996). Young and
Sweeting (2004) found that gender atypical boys were twice as likely to be victimized
by bullies and were more likely to report feelings of loneliness.
Concept of Homophily
Gendered harassment that occurs regularly among friends can be evaluated by
looking at a term called Homophily. In 1954, Lazarsfeld and Merton coined the term
homophily to name the tendency for friendships to develop between people who are
alike. Kandel (1978) looked further at homophily and found that homophily is equally
13
affected by both peer selection and peer socialization. In other words, friends choose
each other because of their similarities as well as remain or become more similar once
they are friends. Poteat (2008) looked at peer groups and their use of homophobic
epithets. He found that the homophily hypothesis indeed holds true when analyzing
the use of homophobic epithets (e.g., faggot). Individuals who use homophobic
epithets are likely to have friends who do the same. When aggression is added to the
peer group, the use of epithets increases.
Manifestations of Gendered Harassment
Homophobic harassment. Boys routinely describe incidences involving the
regular use of homophobic epithets within peer groups (Plummer, 2001). As early as
primary school, the use of homophobic epithets begins. This occurs before sexual
maturity and often lacks sexual meaning. There are many examples in the literature of
boys calling each other gay, homo or fag. Kimmel and Mahler (2003) have termed this
type of bullying as gay-baiting. Gay-baiting is the use of homophobic epithets to
regulate behavior, not necessarily due to the fact that the victims are gay or perceived
to be gay but because the victims do not demonstrate typical masculine behaviors. For
example, if a boy exhibits feminine behavior that creates discomfort in other boys,
calling that person gay targets the undesirable behavior. This process is used to define
acceptable behavioral norms within the peer group (Nayak & Kehily 1996; Phoenix et
al., 2003; Plummer, 2001). Gendered or homophobic harassment is often characterized
by this type of social banter and is usually considered socially acceptable (Franklin,
2000; Phoenix et al., 2003).
14
Plummer (2001) stated that, “Homophobia precedes and presumably provides
an important context for subsequent adult sexual identity formation for all men” (p.
22). He reported that boys consistently claim that homophobic epithets were the worst
thing to be called and not easily forgotten. Although the use of homophobic epithets
seems acceptably common, it is linked with increased aggression involving both males
and females (Poteat & Espelage, 2005). Boys who are harassed by being called gay, as
opposed to boys harassed for other reasons, have more negative feelings about their
school climate, have stronger feelings of anxiety and depression, and are harassed with
more verbal and physical aggression (Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Swearer, Turner,
Givens, & Pollack, 2008). This was true for lesbians and gays as well (Poteat, 2008;
Rivers, 2001).
Homophobic harassment is also a reality for girls. To a lesser degree than boys,
girls use homophobic epithets in an aggressive manner (Poteat & Espelage, 2005).
Young and Sweeting (2004) found that gender atypical girls were almost twice as
likely to be victimized as their gender typical peers were. Among 15-year-old girls,
attributes associated with being unpopular were, “being a lesbian, having special
needs, and being quiet” (Duncan, 2006, p. 53).
Harassment Based on Non-Conforming Gender Expression
Research results suggest that when boys’ masculinity and heterosexuality are
threatened they are likely to participate in homophobic harassment (Phoenix et al.,
2003). A strong masculine self is identified as a heterosexual male (Kimmel, 1994).
There is tremendous pressure for men to be perceived as masculine in order to also be
15
perceived as heterosexual. Through qualitative interviews of parents of preschoolers,
Kane (2006) found that seven of 27 heterosexual parents made assumptions about
their son’s nonconforming gender behaviors as indications of their son’s possible
homosexuality. This was not true for parents of daughters or for gay and lesbian
parents. Kane (2006) suggests “how closely gender conformity and heterosexuality are
linked within hegemonic constructions of masculinity” (p. 163). Any behavior that is
not perceived as masculine threatens a male’s identity as a heterosexual (Pollack,
1999).
Heterosexual Harassment
Masculinity. In his book, Pollack (1999) claims that boys are bound by a
gender straightjacket, meaning that they are bound by the traditional traits associated
with masculinity. Boys are expected to act tough, suppress their feelings, and take
charge. This gender straightjacket becomes even more pronounced during middle
school. Pollack writes of the pressure for boys to be cool at this age. In many
instances, boys equate being cool with being masculine.
Study participants responded negatively when presented with examples of
deviations from masculine gender roles, reinforcing the idea that males are bound by a
rigid code of masculinity (Levy, Taylor, & Gelman, 1995; Martin, 1990). This
hypermasculinity sets up a culture ripe for harassment. All students suffer as a result
of an oppressive culture that sets up a norm where children suppress an authentic
expression of self for fear of being victimized (Rivers et al., 2007).
16
Femininity. The social pressure to conform to gender and sexual norms is not
limited to males. Kane’s (2006) study found that although males have a greater
pressure at an earlier age, females are under pressure to exhibit just the right amount
of femininity as they emerge from puberty. Parents of girls responded negatively to
girls whose appearance was identified as too feminine or too masculine. Although
females are encouraged to try masculine activities when they are young, once puberty
hits, social expectations change (Pipher, 1994). As they grow into adolescence, girls
feel more pressure to reinforce their femininity (Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Thorne,
1993).
Young and Sweeting (2004) found that self-esteem was negatively related to
femininity within girls whereas masculinity within both boys and girls had a positive
relationship to self-esteem. Women and feminine qualities such as nurturance,
cooperation and intuition are not valued in our culture (Orenstein, 1994). Reinforcing
traditional gender roles does no favor to female students. The lower status of female
and child (Powlishta, 2000) combine to cause reason for depression in early
adolescence for young females (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Sadker & Sadker,
1994). In response to an essay prompt related to what it would be like to be the
opposite gender, 42% of girls made positive associations with being male, while only
5% of boys made positive associations with being female (Sadker & Sadker).
Duncan (2006) conducted a study in England with 15-year-old girls and found
that girls associated popularity with “being popular with boys, being loud and being
fashionable” (p. 53). Girls are expected to look, dress and conform to the particular
17
fashion norms of the school, as dictated by the popular girls, in order to be accepted by
their peers and those who set the social pecking order (Rivers et al., 2007). Duncan
found that popularity for girls involves girls’ controlling other girls’ social affairs and
also their willingness to physically fight in order to maintain control and power, a
perfect example of hegemony (Duncan).
Girls are also frequently harassed for issues related to their sexual morality,
often being called derogatory names such as whore, ho, or slut. Girls’ current avenue
to attain social power is through engaging in objectifying behaviors (Brown et al.,
2007). De Beauvoir (1952) writes of women’s futures being dependent on sexual
relationships with men. The number one contributing factor to an adolescent girl’s self
worth is her physical appearance (Orenstein, 1994) particularly habits and behaviors
related to attention from boys (Orenstein; Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Thorne, 1993.
Based on gender alone, girls are more likely to be harassed than boys are (Harris
Interactive & GLSEN, 2005).
In order to gain social status, girls often minimize their contributions. This
leaves girls to feel invisible and to feel a loss of control (Brown et al., 2007). Sadker
and Sadker (1994) interviewed and observed students in schools for 25 years. Their
findings related to girls in schools are significant. As girls mature into adolescence,
they lose their confidence, their sense of selves and their voices. Time and time again,
teachers were observed facilitating problem solving experiences for boys and
reversely, solving problems for girls. Overt sexist comments by teachers regarding
girls’ inadequacies were reported. Girls internalized the message that they were
18
incapable. They were ostracized for being intelligent and responded by hiding their
intelligence and becoming increasingly invisible. “Like a thief in school, sexist lessons
subvert education, twisting it into a system of socialization that robs potential” (Sadker
& Sadker, p. 13).
De Beauvoir (1952) characterizes girls’ adolescence as tragic. She states that at
a time when girls have the urge to explore and conquer, they learn to be silent and
passive. In school and in life, girls and women often feel unsure, inadequate, and
insecure. They begin to second guess themselves, diminish their accomplishments, and
take themselves out of academic and public discourse (Orenstein, 1994).
Absence of Gender in Elementary Anti-Bullying Curriculums
The Conflation of Gender Expression and Sexuality
The assumption that is often made between gender and sexuality has kept
gender out of the anti-bullying curriculums in elementary schools. Schools seem
unwilling to address gendered harassment because of the tie between gender and
sexuality (Leach & Mitchell, 2006). Gender nonconformity is often associated with
homosexuality (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Meyer, 2006) because people often perceive
gender expression, sexual orientation, and appearance to be determinate of each other
(Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005). If an anti-gendered bullying curriculum is
challenging traditional gender norms it seems as if the idea of homosexuality could
hardly be absent from the curriculum. When heterosexuality is the only model offered
to students in schools (Nayak & Kehily, 1996), education related to homosexuality is
almost nonexistent. With the strong heternormativity culture in the United States
19
(Espelage & Swearer, 2008) it is unlikely that many school districts would approve a
discussion on homosexuality in elementary school.
The Alameda Unified School District in California (2010) is in the process of
adopting lessons to address lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
harassment. The Board of Education has approved a series of lessons, referred to as
Lesson 9; however, some parents in the district reacted by requesting that their
students be excused from the lessons, much like the legal excuse from sex education
lessons. A judge ruled that parents did not have the right to have their children
excused due to the fact that the lessons do not include any form of sex education.
Parents also claimed that singling out LGBT issues was unfair and that all areas of
discrimination should be addressed with equal time. The school district has since
collected and made available books and resources available for public review in order
to address the other areas of discrimination. Final adoption of materials and lessons
are pending (Alameda Unified School District).
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) in California is a unique
district. The district led the way as the first district in the nation with curriculum,
resources and trainings to support gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender or
questioning (LGBQT) students (Norton, 2010). In 1990, the SFUSD Board of
Education approved implementation of a program, Support Services for Gay Youth
that provided counseling services to LGBTQ high school students. Two years later,
the program expanded to offer the same services to students, families, and staff
throughout the district. Shortly thereafter, in 1996, the School Board passed Board
20
Resolution #610-8A6 that mandated program changes within Support Services for
LGBTQ. The changes included expanding curriculum, increasing educational
materials, implementation of the Anti-Slur Policy, and providing professional
development for all staff related to meeting the needs of LGBTQ students. Later,
board resolution #5163 provided added support for transgender staff and students (San
Francisco Unified School District website, 2010). Clearly, San Francisco Unified
School District is a pioneer in the area of LGBQT support.
Legal Implications of Harassment Versus Bullying
Gender has also been absent from most bullying curriculums because of the
legal ramifications of gender or sexual harassment. If a student is being bullied the
laws do not protect the student in the same way as if the student was being harassed.
Stein (2003) believes that the intertwining of the terms bullying and harassment has
played a part in the lack of serious response to gender related incidences in schools.
Stein asserts that bad behavior is categorized as bullying, when in fact it may be illegal
sexual or gender harassment, hazing or assault (Stein, 2003). For curriculum geared
towards young children, Stein (2007) suggests that the term bullying is appropriate
because they do not understand sexual harassment or violence. In an interview related
to bullying and gender, Cedillo has similar beliefs: “…schools are not going to talk
about sexual harassment to second graders. Because it’s not safe. It’s so much easier
to talk to them about bullying” (in Chamberlain, 2003, p. 3).
21
Reasons for Addressing Gendered Harassment in Elementary School
Gendered Harassment Affects Everyone
Poteat and Espelage (2005) state that homophobic content and bullying are
closely related and that both should be concurrently addressed. Harassment often
occurs during the school day (D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Plummer,
2001) and generally is perpetrated among groups of same age students (River et al.,
2007). The 2005 Harris Interactive and GLSEN Report, From Teasing to Torment,
reports that the second most frequent reason cited for being teased is a student’s
perceived sexual orientation. Espelage and Swearer (2008) suggest that as early as
elementary school, students internalize negativity associated with being anything but
heterosexual. Tharinger (2008) highlights the belief that homophobia is, “the last
bastion of prejudice in our society” (p. 221). Homophobic harassment affects
everyone. Epstein (2001) has determined that homophobic harassment impacts
everyone in the environment in which it occurs due to the fact that it is often used to
reinforce traditional gender roles for both males and females.
Negative Psychological and Social Consequences
Homophobic harassment has been shown to cause psychological and social
consequences for the victims (D’Augelli et al., 2002; Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Rivers,
2001). The California Safe Schools Coalition (2004) reports that victims of
homophobic harassment are less connected to school, more likely to have low grades,
are three times as likely to miss school due to feeling unsafe and to take a weapon to
school. Students also reported being twice as likely to seriously consider suicide or to
22
make a plan for suicide (California Safe Schools Coalition). Young and Sweeting’s
2004 study involving 15-year olds found that gender atypical boys had a much
stronger chance of being victimized by bullies, had fewer friends and had more
psychological problems than their gender typical male counterparts had.
The Link Between Gendered Harassment and School Violence
Multiple studies found that homophobic harassment has been related to
aggressive and violent behavior within schools (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Poteat &
Espelage, 2005; Rivers 2001). School violence is often misattributed to psychological
risk factors when in fact gender and school culture are more important risk factors that
have been grossly overlooked (Kimmel & Mahler; Stein, 2007). Kimmel and Mahler
state that, “They pay little or no attention that all the school shootings were committed
by boys—masculinity is the single greatest risk factor in school violence” (p. 1442).
An analysis of 23 school shootings between 1992 and 2001 revealed that almost all the
shooters were victims of bullying, violence and gay-baiting. Although none of the
shooters was identified as gay, they were ostracized because they did not fit the typical
masculine mold (Kimmel & Mahler).
Teacher Responses to Gendered Harassment
Many teachers are likely unaware of their own attitudes surrounding
homophobia. Conoley (2008) claims that, “Homophobic attitudes are among the last
utterable prejudices among adults” and by ignoring homophobic behavior teachers are
silently endorsing it (p. 219). Unfortunately, some teachers feel social pressure to
reaffirm gender stereotypes by contributing to the homophobic harassment that goes
23
on in schools. An online study reported that 88% of the students said that homophobic
comments were used at least some of the time in front of teachers or staff and many
times the teachers or staff did not intervene (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005).
Although the incidence of most types of harassment diminish as people age,
homophobic harassment does not decrease as people grow older (Rivers et al., 2007).
In fact, Powlishta’s (2000) study found that adults hold children more accountable for
gendered norms than they do other adults. Although adults generally had more flexible
feelings regarding gender stereotypes, when it came to children the adults were not so
flexible, expecting boys to be masculine and girls to be feminine.
Ill-Equipped Teachers
Without the backing of a curriculum or specialized training, many teachers feel
inadequate and uncomfortable dealing with harassment related to homophobia
(Conoley, 2008; Whitman, Horn & Boyd, 2007). Given that most harassment is verbal
and most of the verbal harassment is homophobic or sexist (Harris Interactive and
GLSEN, 2005), it seems paramount that teachers have access to curriculum and
become educated to respond confidently and effectively when faced with instances of
gendered harassment.
Conclusion
The research highlighted many instances of gendered harassment that occurred
in schools. Whether the harassment was related to homophobia, gender nonconforming expression or heterosexual harassment (Meyer, 2006) the research is clear.
Gendered harassment is harmful to everyone involved (Epstein, 2001). Students who
24
are present during the harassment and students who are targeted for the harassment
both suffer negative consequences (D’Augelli et al., 2002; Poteat & Espelage, 2007;
Rivers, 2001). Psychological consequences are that students are less connected to
school, suffer academically, feel unsafe, and are more apt to consider suicide
(California Safe Schools Coalition & University of California Davis, 2004). Social
consequences are that school cultures are threatened (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Stein,
2007), boys and girls are unable to express their authentic selves (Orenstein, 1994;
Pollack, 1999; Sadker & Sadker, 1994) and the gender norms are maintained giving
power to males over females (Epstein, 2001; Meyer, 2006). Addressing gendered
harassment is important in elementary school (Espelage & Swearer, 2008). Teachers
need access to lessons and curriculums and need school policies and training to
support their efforts to combat gendered harassment (Conoley, 2008; Whitman et al.,
2007).
25
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Setting
The project’s three lesson plans are designed for elementary schools that have
adopted the Second Step: A Violence Prevention (SSAVP) program. Specifically, the
lessons are an addendum to be used with the second grade SSAVP curriculum kit, at
Del Paso Manor Elementary School in the San Juan Unified School District,
Sacramento, California.
Participants
The project’s three lessons are designed for use with second grade students.
Del Paso Manor School is a school that serves students kindergarten through sixth
grade. It is located in a working class neighborhood within Sacramento. The ethnic
profile of the student population is 55% White, 22% Hispanic or Latino, 10% Asian,
9% African American, 2% American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% Filipino, < 1%
Pacific Islander. Thirteen percent of the students are English Language Learners. The
number of students who qualify for the free or reduced lunch program establishes the
economic school profile. To be eligible for the free lunch, the household income needs
to be $28,665, or less, annually. At Del Paso Manor, 38% of the students qualify for
the free and reduced lunch program.
Instruments
Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum is distributed by Committee
for Children. The program has curriculum kits for students preschool age through
26
ninth grade. The program’s goals are to teach students social skills, problem solving
skills and anger management. The format of the lessons is consistent throughout the
grades. The curriculum provides the teacher with a series of lessons for each of the
program’s goals. Each lesson has a large photo-lesson card that portrays children
involved in a social situation who are the same age as the students in the classroom.
As the students look at the photo, the teacher is guided through the lesson by a script
on the back of the card. The specific kit to be used with the project’s three lessons is
the second grade SSAVP program kit.
Design
The teacher’s guide for the Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum
(SSVPC) grade two curriculum kit outlines the specific strategies used within the
program and the format for the photo-lesson cards. According to the teacher’s guide,
research has shown that best practice for teaching behavior skills is a combination of
methods such as modeling, practice, coaching and positive reinforcement (Elliot &
Gresham, 1993; Ladd & Mize, 1983). SSVPC lessons require teachers to use five
main teaching strategies. The lessons generally begin with storytelling. Storytelling is
used to set up the social situation in order to explore the appropriate strategies related
to the targeted social skill. The lesson is scripted with the bold face type indicating
suggested teacher parts. The photo-lesson card is used to help the students visualize
the social situation to be explored.
Directly following the storytelling, teachers engage the students in a guided
class discussion that contains open-ended questions. This discussion accounts for
27
about half the time needed for the lesson. Suggested answers appear in parentheses
after each question.
Following the class discussion, the lessons may include role-play. Role-play
has been deemed an effective teaching strategy because it facilitates modeling, skill
rehearsal, practice and feedback. Role-play accounts for about half the time needed to
teach the lesson. Two types of modeling opportunities are included: teacher modeling
and peer modeling. Teacher modeling is when the teacher leads or participates in a
role-play with a student. The teacher takes on the role of the lead character and acts
out the taught strategies. Peer modeling is when peers act out role-plays to practice the
social skills being taught. Peer modeling is important because the language and
situations closely mirror their own social situations making the skills learned more
applicable.
Another strategy used in SSVPC is coaching. Coaching is when teachers show
and tell students what to do. As student learning takes place, the teacher guides and
helps facilitate the learning.
The last strategies used are debriefing and reinforcement. Debriefing occurs
after the role-play. This affords the students an opportunity to hear precise feedback
that reinforces the concepts taught within the lesson. Reinforcement of the social skills
taught should also occur throughout the day as the teacher observes the students using
the preferred social skills taught.
Currently, lessons that address gender bullying are absent from the elementary
grade lessons of SSVPC. The project’s three lessons include the same format and
28
teaching strategies as SSVPC and serve as addendums for the existing curriculum for
second grade. The lessons were created and aligned with the current format of the
SSVPC curriculum because lessons that are integrated into an existing curriculum are
less of a burden on teachers and are more accessible to students (Stein, 2007). The
goals of the lessons are to teach students socially competent skills to deal with
diversity, name-calling and gender-biased comments.
Procedures
The three lessons can be taught as an additional unit for the SSAVP program.
The lessons should be taught after unit one of the SSAVP curriculum. It is left to the
discretion of the teacher to choose the exact time within the curriculum to best meet
the students’ needs. Each lesson requires 45 minutes of teaching time. The ideal
presentation is to have students seated in close proximity to the teacher. The lessons
should be taught as a series of lessons. The lessons can be taught in any order within
the series; however, it is recommended to teach Lesson One: Respecting Diversity
first, followed by Lesson Two: Name-Calling, and then Lesson Three: Gender-Biased
Comments. Lesson One is to be used with photo-lesson card number 15. Lesson Two
is to be used with photo-lesson card number four. Lesson Three is to be used with
photo-lesson card number thirteen. The lessons are scripted lessons with the teaching
strategies incorporated directly into the lessons.
29
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
Conclusion
A review of the literature on gender bullying has highlighted key elements that
need to be incorporated into social skills lessons in order to prevent future incidences
of bullying and harassment based on gender. Respecting diversity, eliminating namecalling and responding to sexist comments were common recommendations
throughout the literature leading to the conclusion that respecting diversity should be
an overarching goal of all social curriculums. The findings related to moral
disengagement theory highlight the importance of teaching strategies so that children
develop self-regulatory, pro-social behavior that stresses the importance of selfresponsibility and the humanization of all people (Bandura et al., 1996).
Limitations
Two limitations of the project are the specific age of the target population and
the single focus on gender. My lessons are designed for early elementary age students
from six to eight years old, specifically for use in second grade as an addendum for
Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum. The lessons must be implemented
using the second grade kit in order to have access to photo-lesson cards 4, 13 and 15.
Another limitation is the limited affect three lessons will have on the second
grade students. The California Safe Schools Coalition (2004) suggests that school
wide policies and training for staff for dealing with gendered harassment improves the
30
school climate. The lessons created for this project will not be utilized school wide,
nor do they include policy or training.
Cultural norms and beliefs related to gender and sexuality limit the type and
amount of information shared with the students. Due to the age of the target
population, issues related to sexuality, hetero or homosexuality will not be included.
Although the exclusion of sexuality is acceptable in the early grades, there is a great
need for education in upper elementary grades to deal with issues of harassment
surrounding sexuality and gender nonconformity. Gender norms that frame gender in
terms of either female or male limit the discussion of gender. It excludes thinking of
gender beyond the normed definitions of male and female. Discussions of gender, in
order to be inclusive of all students, needs to recognize the full spectrum of gender
identity and the way that spectrum is manifested in behavior and dress.
Recommendations
Lesson One: Respecting Diversity encourages students to explore the
similarities and differences among people. Due to the psychological and social
consequences of homophobic harassment (Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Swearer et al.
2008), it is suggested that educational programs teach respect for sexual orientation
diversity. In elementary school, teaching respect for diversity in sexual orientation can
be accomplished by increasing tolerance for varied gender expressions. Addressing the
rigidity of expectations surrounding gender can help develop a school climate that is
supportive of all children, including students who are gender nonconforming.
(Franklin, 2000; Swearer et al.). All individuals suffer the negative consequences of
31
homophobia, not just gays and lesbians (Poteat & Espelage, 2005). The objectives of
Lesson One are to identify similarities, to name the basic needs of all people, and to
discover and celebrate the differences between themselves and their peers.
Lesson Two: Name-Calling targets name-calling because research shows that
verbal harassment is the most common form of gendered harassment. Most of the
verbal harassment involves homophobic epithets and name-calling (Harris Interactive
& Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, 2005; Rivers, 2001). Although some
perceive name-calling as inconsequential, it is anything but (Phoenix et al., 2003;
Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Swearer et al, 2008). Some victims are harassed on a daily
basis until they exit school (Conoley, 2008; Rivers et al., 2007). Students reported
long lasting negative feelings associated with having homophobic epithets targeted
towards them. Students who were verbally harassed with homophobic comments were
less connected to school, felt unsafe, and suffered psychological consequences
(California Safe Schools Coalition, 2004; Swearer et al.). Eliminating homophobia
should include disallowing permission for adults to ignore children who call other
children derogatory names such as faggot (Phoenix et al.; Plummer, 2001; Swearer et
al.). The objectives of Lesson Two are to teach students to address people by their
given names and to understand that name-calling can be extremely hurtful and is not
acceptable behavior.
Lesson Three: Responding to Gender-Biased Comments teaches that genderbiased comments limit everyone. Making assumptions and stereotypes about people
based on their gender silences their authentic selves, thus reducing their true potential
32
(Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Phoenix et al., 2003; Swearer et al., 2008). The masculinity
codes ruling young boys’ lives are strict and confining (Pollack, 1999). The
expectation placed on girls to express the perfect balance of femininity and
masculinity (Kane, 2006) is impossible. Reinforcing the social stereotypes of gender
reinforces the traditional power structure, giving power to males over females
(Tharinger, 2008). Students should be taught strategies to combat verbal gender
bullying. A study concluded that without intervention, students almost never
confronted their peers’ gendered comments (Lamb, Bigler, Liben, & Green, 2009).
Arming students with strategies to directly address gender-biased comments is
paramount. The two objectives of Lesson Three are to enable students to recognize
gender-biased comments and to formulate and adopt phrases to use in response to the
comments.
33
APPENDIX
Lesson Plans
34
Lesson 1: Accepting Diversity
Concepts
All people have similarities, things that are the same about them, and differences,
things that are different about them. Similarities are usually easy to understand
because they are familiar to us. Differences can be hard to understand and may
seem unusual.
Language concepts: fact, judgment
Objectives
Students will be able to:

Identify things that all people need (similarities)

Identify qualities about themselves that are unique (differences)

Define the concept of “making judgments”
Story and Discussion
Today we will explore the idea that all people have similarities and
differences. We will learn how to make connections with people that appear
or look different. We will learn that making judgments about people based
on their looks can be hurtful.
Show Photo. This is a photo of a boy.
1. Is this boy nice or mean? How do you know? Is this boy smart? How do
you know? Is this boy good at sports? How do you know? Is this boy a
good reader? How do you know? Would this boy be a good friend? How
do you know?
A fact is something that can be proven, it is something known to be true. A
judgment is your opinion, or what you think or feel about someone or
something without knowing for sure. Making judgments about someone
based on what they look like can be hurtful. People often make judgments
when they do not fully understand someone. Making judgments about
people doesn’t give them a fair chance.
Look at photo again. Let’s find ways to put our judgments aside and try to get
to know this person.
35
2. What can you say or do to get to know him? (You might greet him and ask
him his name. Ask him if he likes to swing, play hopscotch, play on the
monkey bars. You might ask him if he has a brother or sister. )
Role-Play
Let’s practice getting to know someone. I am going to pretend like I am a
student and you don’t know any real facts about me. Maybe you’ve seen me
before or made judgments but you’ve never gotten to know me. I need a
volunteer to role-play how you can get to know me.
What you just did was try to find out something that is similar about me.
You were trying to find something we have in common. All people need the
same things: family, friends, a safe place to live, food to eat, water to drink.
Finding similarities can bring people together and help them make
connections.
Once connections are made, finding out about people’s differences can
make our lives richer, more full. Here you can give an example of a
similarity and a difference you share with the same friend (e.g., my friend
and I both love to play soccer together, but she loves to cook and I don’t. I
love to read and she doesn’t. We get to add to each other’s lives with our
differences. She invites me to her house and cooks great meals for me and I
read interesting books and tell her great stories.).
Think of several things you like or some things you are good at. Pair share
with the person next to you and tell them about what you like or what you
are good at. Then to listen to him/her share. When you are done, we will
record information on the white board about people in our class. We’ll look
at our similarities and differences.
Wrap-Up
Today we learned that all people have similarities and differences. All
people need similar things: family, friends, a safe place to live, food and
water. Differences can make our lives more interesting. We learned that
both similarities and differences are important in our lives. Making
judgments based on what people look can be hurtful to people. It is worth
taking the time to get to know a person to find out the facts about him/her.
36
Lesson 2: Name-Calling
Concept
Everybody has a special name. Everybody deserves to be respectfully called by
his or her name.
Objectives
Students will be able to:

Understand that everyone has a name.

Understand that it is respectful to address people by their names.

Understand that name-calling can be extremely hurtful and should not be
done.
Story and Discussion
Today we will learn that everybody has a special name.
Show photo. This is Donny. Donny wanted Jamal to play in his fort
but Jamal didn’t want to. Jamal wanted to read instead. Donny
just called his friend Jamal a “sissy”.
1. How do you think Jamal feels? (Hurt, disappointment.)
How can you tell? (He has a frown, his head is down turned.)
Name-calling is extremely hurtful. People do not easily forget when
someone calls them a hurtful name. Calling someone a name is as hurtful as
hitting or pushing someone. Name-calling is like hitting or pushing
someone’s feelings. Name-calling is NEVER okay.
2. Why do you think Donny called Jamal a hurtful name? (He was upset that
Jamal didn’t want to play in the fort. He thinks playing in a fort is better than
reading.)
3. Do you think Donny solved the problem by calling Jamal a name? (No, it
just made the problem worse.)
Everybody has a special name and that is the name that should be used
when addressing the person. People’s personal names are important to
them and to their families. A simple sign of respect is to call people by their
given names. Some people have nicknames given to them by close family or
friends. Before you call a person by his/her nickname it is courteous to ask
37
permission. Respect the person’s answer. Sometimes people are
comfortable with only certain people calling them by their nickname.
4. What do you think Donny could have done instead of calling Jamal a
name? (He could have told Jamal he was disappointed because he really
wanted to play in the fort together. He could have asked Jamal to play in the
fort for a while and then they could read together later. He could have asked
Jamal if there was something else they could do together besides read.)
5. What could Jamal do after the name-calling incident? (He could have
responded, “My name is Jamal. Calling me other names is not okay” or,
“Calling me names doesn’t solve the problem.”)
Name-calling can be hurtful if it only happens once but it can
become a serious problem when it happens over and over again.
Reporting repeated name-calling to a trusted adult can help both
you and the other person.
Activity
Tell students what you know about your given name. Tell details such as where
your name comes from and why your name is special to you and your family.
Have students pair share what they know about their own special names. Once
students have shared; offer time for students to share aloud their stories.
Wrap-Up
Today we learned that all people have special names given to them. Part of
showing people respect is by calling them their given name. Name-calling is
NEVER okay. Reporting repeated name-calling to a trusted adult can help
everyone.
38
Lesson 3: Responding to Gender-Biased Comments
Concepts
People have the right to choose their own likes and dislikes.
People have the right to express their own feelings.
Language concept: gender, rights
Objectives
Students will be able to:

Identify a gender-biased comment.

Respond appropriately to a gender-biased comment.
Story and Discussion
Today we will learn about gender-biased comments. Gender is if you are a
girl or a boy. A gender-biased comment is a comment that tells you
something about being a boy or a girl. Comments about girls and boys can
be limiting because they are not always true for all boys or all girls. For
example: Girls like dolls and boys like trucks are gender-biased comments
because not all girls like dolls and not all boys like trucks. In fact, some boys
like dolls and some girls like trucks.
Show Photo. This is Lauren. She wants to play football with Zach. When
Lauren asks Zach if she can play, he says, “Girls don’t play football, only
boys do.”
1. How do you think Lauren feels? (She feels hurt, maybe mad about being a
girl.)
2. Why do you think Zach said, “Girls don’t play football, only boys do.”
(Maybe he only sees boys or men playing football. Maybe someone told him
football is a boy’s game.)
Telling people what they can or cannot do, or can and cannot feel because of
their gender is wrong. People have the right to choose activities they like
and have the right to feel the way they feel. A right is having the freedom to
be able to do things, to be able to share your own ideas, and to be able to
have your own feelings about things. All people have the right to choose
their own activities, share their own ideas, and have their own feelings. It
doesn’t matter if you are a girl or a boy. All people have equal rights. There
39
is no such thing as boy things, or games, or colors, or toys or feelings, just
like there is no such thing as girl things, or games, or colors, or toys, or
feelings.
3. What do you think Lauren can say to Zach? (She can say, “There is no such
thing as boy games or girl games. People have the right to choose their own
games.” She can tell Zach that girls can play football too. She can say, “Well,
I’m a girl and I like to play football.”)
Role-Play
Sometimes people know something is wrong, but they don’t know how to
stand up for their rights. I am going to role-play that I am a child. I will
make a comment. You pretend that I am talking to you. Raise your hand if
you have a response to my comment. We can brainstorm a list of responses
to gender-biased comments for you to use to stand up for your rights.
Select comments from the list below. Modify the comments as needed or adapt
the comments to reflect the experiences of your students.
“You can’t pick pink, you’re a boy.”
“Only girls can play this game” or “Only boys can play this game”
“Be tough, act like a man”
“Girls are better at coloring”
“I can run faster than you because I’m a boy”
“Girls are better than boys” or “Boys are better than girls”
Write down student responses. After the role-play, go over the response list with
students and work together to formulate several simple, quick catch phrases to
use in response to gender-biased comments. (Examples: “It doesn’t matter if
you’re a girl or a boy, we all have equal rights.” “Colors, games, activities, feelings
are for everyone, not just boys or not just girls.” “That’s not fair, everyone has the
right!”)
Wrap-Up
Today we learned about gender-biased comments. By using the phrases we
made today, you can stick up for your rights and the rights of your
classmates.
40
Transfer of Learning
Post the class generated catch phrases where students can see them and use
them. Refer to the phrases as needed.
41
REFERENCES
Alameda Unified School District. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/index.php/home/caring-schools-communitycurriculum
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of
moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basics Books.
Brown, L. M., Chesney-Lind, M., & Stein, N. (2007, December). Patriarchy matters:
Toward a gendered theory of teen violence and victimization. Violence Against
Women, 13, 1249-1273. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/12/1249
California Safe Schools Coalition and University of California, Davis, 4-H Center for
Youth Development. (2004). Consequences of harassment based on actual or
perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and steps for making
schools safer. Davis, CA: Author.
Chamberlain, S. P. (2003). An interview with…Susan Limber and Sylvia Cedillo:
Responding to bullying. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 236-242.
Cherlin, A. J. (1996). Public and private families: An introduction. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
42
Committee for Children. (2002). Second step: A violence prevention curriculum,
Grades 1 – 3, Teacher’s guide for the grade 2 curriculum kit. Seattle,
WA: Author.
Conoley, J. C. (2008). Sticks and stones can break my bones and words can really hurt
me. School Psychology Review, 37, 217-220.
D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and
mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148-167.
De Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New York: Vintage
Books.
Duncan, N. (2006). Girls’ violence and aggression against other girls: Femininity and
bullying in UK schools. In F. Leach & C. Mitchell (Eds.), Combating gender
violence in and around schools (pp. 51-59). Sterling, VA: Trentham Books.
Elliot S. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1993). Social skills interventions for children.
Behavior Modification, 17, 287-313.
Epstein, D. (2001). Boyz’ own stories: Masculinities and sexualities in schools. In W.
Martino & B. Meyenn (Eds.), What about the boys: Issues of masculinities in
schools (p. 106). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2008). Addressing research gaps in the intersection
between homophobia and bullying. School Psychology Review, 37, 155-159.
43
Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young adults: Prevalence, patterns, and
motivators in a noncriminal population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15,
339-362. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/339
Gender Equity Resource Center. (2010). LGBT Resources: Definition of terms.
Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. Retrieved April 17, 2010,
from http://geneq.berkeley.edu/lgbt_resources_definiton_of_terms
Harris Interactive and Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (2005). From
teasing to torment: School climate in America, a survey of students and
teachers. New York: GLSEN.
Harris Interactive for American Association of University Women Educational
Foundation. (2001). Washington, DC: American Association of University
Women Educational Foundation.
Harris, J. (1995, July). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory
of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.
Jacklin, C. N., & Maccoby, E .E. (1978, September). Social behavior at 33 months in
same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 49, 557-569.
Kandel, D. B. (1978, September). Homophily, selection, and socialization in
adolescent friendships. The American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.
Kane, E. W. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!” Parents’ responses to
children’s gender nonconformity. Gender & Society, 20, 149-176.
44
Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia. In H. Brod, & M. Kaufman
(Eds.), Theorizing Masculinities (pp. 119-141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003, June). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia,
and violence: Random school shootings, 1982-2001. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1439-1458.
Ladd, G. W., & Mize, J. (1983). A cognitive social learning model of social-skill
training. Psychological Review, 90, 127-157.
Lamb, L. M., Bigler, R. S., Liben, L. S., & Green, V. A. (2009). Teaching children to
confront peers’ sexist remarks: Implications for theories of gender
development and educational practice. Sex Roles, 61, 361-382.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as social process: A substantive
and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.),
Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18-66). New York: D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc.
Leach, F., & Mitchell, C. (2006). Situating the study of gender violence in and around
schools. In F. Leach, & C. Mitchell (Eds.), Combating gender violence in and
around schools (pp. 3-12). Sterling, VA: Trentham Books.
Levy, G. D., Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). Traditional and evaluative
aspects of flexibility in gender roles, social conventions, moral rules, and
physical laws. Child Development, 66, 515-533.
45
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional
and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151-165.
Meyer, E. (2006). Gendered harassment in North America: Recognising homophobia
and heterosexism among students. In F. Leach & C. Mitchell (Eds.),
Combating gender violence in and around schools (pp. 43-47). Sterling, VA:
Trentham Books.
Nayak, A., & Kehily, M. J. (1996). Playing it straight: Masculinities, homophobias
and schooling. Journal of Gender Studies, 5, 211-230.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in
depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424-443.
Norton, R. (2010, February 10). School boards member, Supporting gay youth is a
core San Francisco value. City Brights, San Francisco Chronicle Online.
Retrieved from
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/blogs/rnorton/detail?blogid=184&entry_id=570
37#top
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.
Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: a cross-national
perspective (pp. 7-27). New York: Routledge.
Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap.
New York: American Association of University Women and Anchor Books.
46
Phoenix, A., Frosh, S., & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing contradictory masculine
subject positions: Narratives of threat, homophobia and bullying in 11-14 year
old boys. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 179-195.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Plummer, D. C. (2001). The quest for modern manhood: masculine stereotypes, peer
culture and the social significance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
15-23.
Pollack, W. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New
York: Henry Holt and Company.
Poteat, V. P. (2008, June). Contextual and moderating effects of the peer group
climate on use of homophobic epithets. School Psychology Review, 37, 188201.
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and
homophobic verbal content: The homophobic content agent target (HCAT)
scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513-528.
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psychosocial consequences of
homophobic victimization in middle school students. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 27, 175-191 Retrieved December 1, 2009, from
http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/175
Powlishta, K. K. (2000). The effect of target age on the activation of gender
stereotypes. Sex Roles, 42, 271-282.
47
Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long termcorrelates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 32-46.
Rivers, I., Duncan, N., & Besag, V. E. (2007). Bullying: A handbook for educators
and parents. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls.
New York: Touchstone.
San Francisco Unified School Website. (2010). Student support services department,
LGBTQ support services site: Creating a safe place for all students. Retrieved
April 13, 2010, from http://healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/About/index.html
Stein, N. (2003, Fall). Symposium: Translating insights into policy: Bullying or sexual
harassment? The missing discourse of rights in an era of zero tolerance. 45
Arizona Law Review, 45, 783, 1-15.
Stein, N. (2007). Bullying, harassment and violence among students. Radical Teacher,
80, 30-37.
Swearer, S. M., Turner, R. K., Givens, J. E., & Pollack, W. S. (2008). “You’re so
gay!”: Do different forms of bullying matter for adolescent males? School
Psychology Review, 37, 160-173.
Tharinger, D. J. (2008). Maintaining the hegemonic masculinity through selective
attachment, homophobia, and gay-baiting in schools: Challenges to
intervention. School Psychology Review, 37, 221-227.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
48
Whitman, J. S., Horn, S. S., & Boyd, C. J. (2007). Providing LGBTQ affirmative
training to school counselors. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11,
143-154.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology.
Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245-271.
Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological
well-being, and gender atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex
Roles, 50, 525-537.