In Pakistan we assume a woman is meant to stay at home, do chores, marry, bear children, and look after family and house. She is judged based on how well she is doing by these criteria. And the man is the bread-winner. He works, and he earns; his performance evaluation is based on ‘how well he provides for his family’.
How do we decide who does what? Or the assumption suffices that traditional gender roles that have been ascribed over years of practice stand true? This gender stereotyping is reinforced by the repetitive enforcement by content on media as well as content we are exposed to during our academic years. This brings us to curriculum as a factor contributing to the problem.
Curriculum is critical. What is being taught is more important than where it is being taught – in a slum school being run under an overhead bridge or a big school in a posh locality. It is the curriculum that defines what your child is learning and what will he ‘know’ when he is ready to graduate from school. Curriculum theorists argue that one critical question needs to be answered: what should all students know by the time they leave school?
Education is not a mere process of socialisation, but is in charge for transformation as well. Then why is this agent of change failing to transform the traditional gender roles that dominate the society even today?
Curriculum entails textbooks that are chosen to be taught in schools as well. The content including the illustrations on these books leave a lasting image on a child’s mind. On an average, a child is in custody of a textbook of any subject for a long period spanning up to a year. This repetitive exposure to it has an impact on the child, so much so that even concepts of gender roles are further reinforced. What he sees in the society is further validated by the curriculum.
Males are far more noticeable than females in most textbooks. This is mainly because they are frequently the main characters, in story titles as well as in illustrations. Additionally, the visibility of this gender in the text takes a major jump due to the language used, especially the pronouns. A review of the curriculum will reflect how the male gender is used to portray ‘mankind’. ‘Man’ is commonly used to refer to all human beings.
Curriculum needs to encourage gender-neutral language. I struggle with gender-neutral language myself because I was taught to use man as a general reference. However, it is a habit that we need to shake ourselves loose of.
Furthermore, curriculum needs to be progressive where it does not instill in its students the belief that both males and females have mutually exclusive characteristics. Portrayal of a female as weak, passive, and docile character and man as strong and active, just further encourages the traditional narrative.
The depiction of these characteristics is further evident in the text referring to occupational roles. It is rarely ever that the females are shown in occupations and in ranks higher than the males. The man is typically shown as the ‘healing’ doctor in the book and the woman as the ‘caring’ nurse. The same is true for family roles. The domestic tasks of cooking, cleaning, sewing and washing are for the females to do, and the gardening, repairing is for the males. A ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ person is also identified by how they fare against their expected attributes and how well they perform the ascribed tasks. For example, a ‘good’ woman is one who keeps her house clean, is a great cook, and knows how to please the man of the house. And how many women in leadership roles and as heroic characters are taught in our books as compared to men in similar roles?
The construct of the curriculum being taught in our schools is gender-specific, and children exposed to this gender apartheid reinforce the already existing patriarchal society.
The writer is CEO White Ribbon Pakistan and is a development and communications professional with extensive experience in Health Awareness, Behaviour Transformation Communications and Strategic Public Relations. He tweets at @MrOmerAftab.