scrolling through my Twitter timeline this week， one particular tweet， with an image attached， immediately jumped out at me. A parent had shared a snapshot of her six-year-old childs homework—a worksheet asking pupils to research a scientist or inventor. So far， so normal. But the question， in jaunty Comic Sans， read： “Who was he？ Who was the person you have chosen to look at？ How old were they when they began inventing？ Did they have a wife and family？”

The frustration of the parent， who appealed to other Twitter users for suggestions of female inventors， would be dismissed by many as an overreaction to a carelessly worded question. But she is far from alone. Parents share similar homework woes with the Everyday Sexism website and Twitter account with startling regularity.

One referenced their sons physics homework， which used examples of men pushing vans， lifting weights， climbing trees and shooting arrows. The sole female example was a woman pushing a pram. Another parent described an assignment where children were directed to use a particular biographical research website， only to find that， of the 21 historical personalities listed， just two were women. One persons son had even been asked to compare the qualities of a “good wife” from biblical to modern times （with no similar exercise discussing the merits of husbands）. Numerous questions involved men doing active， strong tasks such as driving or playing sports， while women cooked， cleaned or， in one particularly bizarre example， simply “sat on a rug”.

To those who cry “overreaction”， a new study published this month by the U.S.based National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that gender bias at primary school may in fact have longterm implications for pupils. The study saw several groups of students take two exams， one marked blind by outside examiners， the other marked by teachers who knew the studentsnames. In maths， girls outperformed boys on the anonymously marked exam， but boys outperformed girls when assessed by teachers who knew their names， suggesting that they may have overestimated the boys abilities and underestimated the girls.

Tracking the pupils to the end of high school， the researchers found that boys who were given encouragement as youngsters not only performed better later on， but were also more likely to take advanced courses involving maths， compared with girls who had been discouraged. They concluded： “Teachers overassessment of boys in a specific subject has a positive and significant effect on boys overall future achievements in that subject， while having a significant negative effect on girls.”

Of course， many teachers actively encourage girls into Stem （science， technology， engineering and mathematics） subjects. But gender stereotypes are not only passed on at school. They also proliferate in the advertising， television， books， magazines and conversations that children are exposed to from a young age. One parent recently recounted to me the moment that their three-year-old daughter picked up a toy stethoscope， only for another well-meaning adult to swoop in and comment： “Ah， are you going to be a nurse？” Not， of course， that it wouldnt be a fine choice of profession， but what would the corresponding comment have been had a little boy chanced upon the same toy？

That young people might be deeply influenced by the gender stereotypes thrust upon them should give us all pause. How often do we heedlessly shower little girls with platitudes about prettiness and looks， or comment on how “big and strong” their brothers are growing？ We hear comments about the sweetness and politeness of daughters， while sons are proudly described as boisterous instead.

In the strictly segregated aisles of many toy stores， blue shelves mark off chemistry sets， dinosaurs and building tools as the domain of boys， while girls are left holding the （plastic） baby.

Each individual incident is easily dismissed as harmless. And， of course， theres nothing wrong with an individual child choosing to identify with any of these roles. But its the assumptions made for them that matter. Young children are not always equipped， as most adults are， with the critical tools to analyse and probe information—what is presented as fact is often absorbed without question. This might seem extreme， until， as I have， you visit a variety of primary school classrooms and start to realise just how many under-10s genuinely think that girls simply arent allowed to be footballers or doctors or lawyers. Ask your nearest small friend about these matters—you may be unpleasantly surprised.

The silver lining is that change is happening. Several toy stores have abandoned gender segregation， partly thanks to the efforts of campaigns such as Pinkstinks and Let Toys Be Toys. The parent whose tweet first caught my eye later reported an excellent response and apology from the school. There is hope， too， in the reactions of children themselves. One mother described how， asked to complete a drawing for homework showing “Mummy in the kitchen”， her seven-year old son added his daddy to the picture， doing the washing up.

Its refreshing to see how ridiculous sexism can look through childrens eyes. If we could only restrain ourselves from passing our own inherited assumptions on to them.

瀏覽這周我推特上的內(nèi)容時(shí)，其中一條有圖片的推特立即把我吸引住了。一位家長(zhǎng)分享了一張她六歲孩子作業(yè)的圖片，題目要求學(xué)生們調(diào)查一位科學(xué)家或發(fā)明家。目前為止一切正常。但所提的問(wèn)題卻是（字體是歡樂(lè)的漫畫字體）：“他是誰(shuí)？你選擇調(diào)查的是什么人？他們開(kāi)始發(fā)明時(shí)幾歲？他們是否有妻子和自己的家庭？”

這位家長(zhǎng)詢問(wèn)其他推特用戶所知道的女性發(fā)明者，但很多人覺(jué)得她的懊惱只是對(duì)一個(gè)無(wú)心的措辭問(wèn)題的過(guò)度反應(yīng)而不予理睬。但她絕不是在孤軍作戰(zhàn)。父母?jìng)冊(cè)凇懊咳招詣e歧視網(wǎng)”和在推特上分享相似的作業(yè)苦惱，讓人吃驚的是，這種事情時(shí)有發(fā)生。

一位家長(zhǎng)指出，兒子的物理作業(yè)用的例子是男人推小貨車、抬重物、爬樹(shù)和射箭。而唯一出現(xiàn)女性的例子是推嬰兒車。另一位家長(zhǎng)稱一份作業(yè)是教孩子們使用一個(gè)傳記搜索網(wǎng)站，但卻發(fā)現(xiàn)在“21世紀(jì)歷史人物”的名單中，只有兩位是女性。一位家長(zhǎng)的兒子甚至被要求對(duì)比《圣經(jīng)》時(shí)代和現(xiàn)代的“好妻子”的品質(zhì)（沒(méi)有討論丈夫美德的類似題目）。還有很多問(wèn)題是關(guān)于男人從事積極的、強(qiáng)度大的活動(dòng)，如開(kāi)車、做運(yùn)動(dòng)，而女人則是在做飯、清潔或，在一個(gè)離奇的例子中，就只是“坐在毯子上”。

要跟那些喊著“反應(yīng)過(guò)度”的人說(shuō)的是：美國(guó)國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)研究局本月發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)新研究表明小學(xué)里的性別歧視真的會(huì)對(duì)學(xué)生有長(zhǎng)期的影響作用。研究中，幾組學(xué)生分別參加了兩次考試，一次由外部評(píng)分者匿名評(píng)分，另一次由知道學(xué)生名字的老師評(píng)分。數(shù)學(xué)測(cè)試，在不顯示姓名的考試中，女生的成績(jī)比男生好，但由知道學(xué)生名字的老師評(píng)分的考試中，男生的成績(jī)較好。這意味著他們可能高估了男生的能力而低估了女生的能力。

研究人員一直追蹤這些學(xué)生到高中畢業(yè)，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，比起受到打擊的女生，小時(shí)候受過(guò)鼓勵(lì)的男生在日后不僅成績(jī)更好，還更可能選擇涉及數(shù)學(xué)的高級(jí)課程。他們總結(jié)：“老師對(duì)男生在某些科目上的過(guò)高評(píng)價(jià)對(duì)男生日后在該科目的成就有積極而重要的影響，而對(duì)女生有十分不利的影響。”

當(dāng)然，很多老師會(huì)積極鼓勵(lì)女生學(xué)習(xí)理工科（科學(xué)、技術(shù)、工程和數(shù)學(xué)）。但性別偏見(jiàn)并不僅僅在學(xué)校出現(xiàn)。這種偏見(jiàn)蔓延至廣告、電視、書、雜志和對(duì)話交流中，這些事物是小孩子從小就有所接觸的。一位家長(zhǎng)最近跟我說(shuō)，一次他們?nèi)龤q的女兒拿起了聽(tīng)診器，另一位并無(wú)惡意的成人突然走過(guò)來(lái)說(shuō)：“啊，你以后是不是要當(dāng)護(hù)士呀？”這當(dāng)然不是說(shuō)護(hù)士就不是個(gè)好的職業(yè)選擇，但，要是拿起同樣玩具的是一個(gè)男孩，那對(duì)方會(huì)怎么說(shuō)呢？

小孩子會(huì)受到強(qiáng)加于他們的性別偏見(jiàn)的深遠(yuǎn)影響，我們不應(yīng)該再這樣做了。我們有多少次無(wú)意中給小女孩灌輸“漂亮”和“外表”這些陳腐觀念，有多少次說(shuō)過(guò)她們的兄弟長(zhǎng)得多么“高大強(qiáng)壯”？我們時(shí)常聽(tīng)到父母夸女兒說(shuō)“可愛(ài)”、“有禮貌”，卻驕傲地說(shuō)兒子“活蹦亂跳的”。

在許多有嚴(yán)格區(qū)分過(guò)道的玩具店里，藍(lán)色的架子上擺的大多是化學(xué)工具、恐龍和建筑工具等男孩玩具，而女孩則只能抱著（塑料）嬰兒。

每個(gè)單獨(dú)的事件都會(huì)被輕易當(dāng)成是無(wú)傷大雅的。當(dāng)然，一個(gè)小孩選擇任何一個(gè)角色都沒(méi)問(wèn)題。但問(wèn)題是對(duì)他們所做的暗示。小孩子并不總是如多數(shù)成人般會(huì)用正確的工具來(lái)分析和研究信息——以事實(shí)呈現(xiàn)的信息常常被毫不懷疑地接受。這或許看起來(lái)有點(diǎn)極端，但當(dāng)我走訪了許多小學(xué)教室后，我就不這樣認(rèn)為了，我發(fā)現(xiàn)有太多10歲以下的孩子由衷地認(rèn)為女孩就是不能成為足球運(yùn)動(dòng)員或醫(yī)生或律師。問(wèn)問(wèn)你身邊的小朋友這些問(wèn)題——你應(yīng)該會(huì)感到不安和驚訝。

讓人欣慰的是，情況正在發(fā)生變化。一些玩具店已開(kāi)始撤銷性別分區(qū)，這離不開(kāi)“討厭的粉紅”和“還原玩具本質(zhì)”組織所作的努力。第一位引起我注意的家長(zhǎng)后來(lái)告訴大家學(xué)校給了很好的回應(yīng)并道歉。從孩子們做出的反應(yīng)中也看到了希望。一位母親說(shuō)到，7歲的兒子要求畫的畫是“在廚房的媽媽”，而他把正在洗刷的爸爸也畫進(jìn)了畫中。

知道孩子們看待性別歧視是如此的可笑，讓人有了不同的感悟。要是我們能克制自己，不把我們傳承下來(lái)的想法強(qiáng)加在他們身上該有多好。

Dumas仲馬

One day a man was taunting Alexandre Dumas， the great French novelist， with his ancestry. “Why，” snarled the fellow，“you are a quadroon;your father was a mulatto， and your grandfather was a negro.” “Yes，” roared Dumas，“and， if you wish to knowmy great grandfather was a monkey. In fact， my pedigree began where yours terminates.”

有一天，一個(gè)人在嘲弄法國(guó)大小說(shuō)家亞歷山大·仲馬，譏笑他的祖先。 那家伙厲聲說(shuō)：“唔，你是四分之一黑白混血兒，你父親是黑白混血兒，而你的祖父是個(gè)黑人?！薄笆堑?，”仲馬大聲回敬：“還有呢，如果你想知道的話，我的曾祖父是一只猴子。其實(shí)我的血統(tǒng)起始于你的血統(tǒng)終止的地方。”