http://www.naeyc.org/content/what-research-says-gender-typed-toys

The attached visual is a simple one that could even go unnoticed if one walked into a classroom during playtime. The girl and boy appear to be of the same age, yet they’re geared to choose different toys to play with. The girl is already encouraged to take the home-making nurturer role while cradling the baby doll. Meanwhile the boy is playing with cars and trucks, leading us to assume he is being pushed to a more technological focus. This picture displays the gender appropriation even in the toddler age group. They aren’t yet old enough to know what gender is, but we show them which traits and activities are acceptable for boys and girls. This communicates further that there is a difference in which traits are expected. This expectation is socially constructed and I just find it interesting that we persist these norms.

This communicates the early-on perspectives that parents push on children simply based off of gender. This is seen in colors of items, toys, parenting styles, preferences, relatability, and even the amount of attention and sensitivity given. I nanny for a fraternal set of twins, one of each sex, and their toys are distinguishable by the toy type and the color. She’s reprimanded I feel more intensely for being rough and loud, whereas his same outbursts that are expected of a toddler are more often excused with a lighter consequence. It makes me wonder if we’re teaching sensitivity on an equal spectrum or if we’re creating different personality types because of sex.

The way babies play is crucial for the way that their minds frame things as they grow. If we’re encouraging toddler girls to nurture, yet we’re encouraging toddler boys to play rough and build, are we placing limitations or internal expectations for these children to grow up with? It’s a deeper discussion looking at what defines masculine and feminine. I’m simply wondering if the gender roles implemented on toddlers shape their personalities and mindsets as they grow older. Also, I wonder how the interactions between the parents and the children because of gender shape their skill sets, whether physical, mental, or emotional. A little boy is allowed to be rougher, or is told to not cry. Does he feel he needs to be rougher and not sensitive? The way we treat the babies teaches them how to relate to themselves. Growing up with a set of expectations and somewhat spoken rules per gender creates a lot of stress if the child doesn’t feel they fit within those restrictions also. It’s interesting to watch these interactions also through different families and see what remains consistent and what changes based on their upbringing preference.

The analogy of childhood curiosity in comparison to the situational curiosity in adulthood is an interesting way to approach the planning phase of a paper. I initially thought of the children I nanny and their never-ending questions and the excitement behind them. I liked how Ballenger included this because planning a paper is normally somewhat stressful for me simply because I feel concerned over if the topic is worthwhile or can allow for a smooth writing process. I also get overwhelmed because my mind works best step by step, and at first the process is all big-picture and I’m unsure of where to begin. He/she explained it in a way that came across as natural, as in, one really should just be pretty stoked about a topic, and have the dedication to it to explore that topic. It’s an easier approach to phrase it that way.

Reid suggests that anything worth being good at takes some time and that there is always room for improvement. This relates to our writing process because often I feel I’m rushing to meet a word count, or I’m writing inbetween other obligations and am unable to really consider everything on my paper. I interpreted his suggestion in relation to writing as creating the time to plan, plan even more, proofread, revise, plan again, and make sure it is improving at each step. I enjoy writing. I can’t do a simple math problem, but I can get a long paper done pretty quickly. This method relates to his part about extrinsic motivation due to grades and deadlines, because we’ll often rush an assignment knowing we can complete it, but it doesn’t truly represent our capabilities.

Both articles discuss that the audience and purpose is important to consider. We must consider the point that we’re trying to explain, as well as whom we’d ideally explain it to so we know how to phrase and organize our thoughts and style. Reid’s position within his or her blog is different than a student writing for a dissertation because there is more expected freedom on a blog, and less expectation for structure and academically advanced writing. Ballenger’s approach is transient between different writing styles and audiences because either way, one needs to consider an audience, and either way, picking an intriguing topic creates a sort of mental game for the writer to get excited about Ballenger also discusses working knowledge, and states it as something one can talk more than a minute about without repetition. Reid talks about vast content on the internet and the easy access that blogs allow for. We learn from the information we ingest whether forced or not, but what about the information we freely produce without the threat of a bad grade, or the ideal of a good one?

I really, deeply enjoy writing poetry and vignettes. It stays in my notebook and it’s only for my eyes, so it’s solely for intrinsic purposes. Once I start writing my hand just continues on the paper and doesn’t even seem to be guided by my brain. It’s like an auto-pilot. It’s exciting, and it’s an insightful experience to re-read what comes out so naturally. Sometimes I’m surprised at what finds its way to paper from my mind because I didn’t even know I felt so intensely about something until I begin to write. It slows my thoughts down. I feel like they’re always in constant motion, and its a little wild because one would think while writing that the brain is being used most, yet it seems that it’s one of the few quiet times. Super strange.

I understand both author’s purpose of writing each of their articles is to explain the type of interaction with writing that I explained above. A strong passion with a little bit of tenderness for the topic. Where it comes from a deeper place than just mulling over an article and instigating forced brain activity to get some words on paper until the count is reached. Being attached to the topic would seemingly create a more involved writing process and final outcome for the writer to be more satisfied with.