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.

浏览这周我推特上的内容时，其中一条有图片的推特立即把我吸引住了。一位家长分享了一张她六岁孩子作业的图片，题目要求学生们调查一位科学家或发明家。目前为止一切正常。但所提的问题却是（字体是欢乐的漫画字体）：“他是谁？你选择调查的是什么人？他们开始发明时几岁？他们是否有妻子和自己的家庭？”

这位家长询问其他推特用户所知道的女性发明者，但很多人觉得她的懊恼只是对一个无心的措辞问题的过度反应而不予理睬。但她绝不是在孤军作战。父母们在“每日性别歧视网”和在推特上分享相似的作业苦恼，让人吃惊的是，这种事情时有发生。

一位家长指出，儿子的物理作业用的例子是男人推小货车、抬重物、爬树和射箭。而唯一出現女性的例子是推婴儿车。另一位家长称一份作业是教孩子们使用一个传记搜索网站，但却发现在“21世纪历史人物”的名单中，只有两位是女性。一位家长的儿子甚至被要求对比《圣经》时代和现代的“好妻子”的品质（没有讨论丈夫美德的类似题目）。还有很多问题是关于男人从事积极的、强度大的活动，如开车、做运动，而女人则是在做饭、清洁或，在一个离奇的例子中，就只是“坐在毯子上”。

要跟那些喊着“反应过度”的人说的是：美国国家经济研究局本月发表的一项新研究表明小学里的性别歧视真的会对学生有长期的影响作用。研究中，几组学生分别参加了两次考试，一次由外部评分者匿名评分，另一次由知道学生名字的老师评分。数学测试，在不显示姓名的考试中，女生的成绩比男生好，但由知道学生名字的老师评分的考试中，男生的成绩较好。这意味着他们可能高估了男生的能力而低估了女生的能力。

研究人员一直追踪这些学生到高中毕业，他们发现，比起受到打击的女生，小时候受过鼓励的男生在日后不仅成绩更好，还更可能选择涉及数学的高级课程。他们总结：“老师对男生在某些科目上的过高评价对男生日后在该科目的成就有积极而重要的影响，而对女生有十分不利的影响。”

当然，很多老师会积极鼓励女生学习理工科（科学、技术、工程和数学）。但性别偏见并不仅仅在学校出现。这种偏见蔓延至广告、电视、书、杂志和对话交流中，这些事物是小孩子从小就有所接触的。一位家长最近跟我说，一次他们三岁的女儿拿起了听诊器，另一位并无恶意的成人突然走过来说：“啊，你以后是不是要当护士呀？”这当然不是说护士就不是个好的职业选择，但，要是拿起同样玩具的是一个男孩，那对方会怎么说呢？

小孩子会受到强加于他们的性别偏见的深远影响，我们不应该再这样做了。我们有多少次无意中给小女孩灌输“漂亮”和“外表”这些陈腐观念，有多少次说过她们的兄弟长得多么“高大强壮”？我们时常听到父母夸女儿说“可爱”、“有礼貌”，却骄傲地说儿子“活蹦乱跳的”。

在许多有严格区分过道的玩具店里，蓝色的架子上摆的大多是化学工具、恐龙和建筑工具等男孩玩具，而女孩则只能抱着（塑料）婴儿。

每个单独的事件都会被轻易当成是无伤大雅的。当然，一个小孩选择任何一个角色都没问题。但问题是对他们所做的暗示。小孩子并不总是如多数成人般会用正确的工具来分析和研究信息——以事实呈现的信息常常被毫不怀疑地接受。这或许看起来有点极端，但当我走访了许多小学教室后，我就不这样认为了，我发现有太多10岁以下的孩子由衷地认为女孩就是不能成为足球运动员或医生或律师。问问你身边的小朋友这些问题——你应该会感到不安和惊讶。

让人欣慰的是，情况正在发生变化。一些玩具店已开始撤销性别分区，这离不开“讨厌的粉红”和“还原玩具本质”组织所作的努力。第一位引起我注意的家长后来告诉大家学校给了很好的回应并道歉。从孩子们做出的反应中也看到了希望。一位母亲说到，7岁的儿子要求画的画是“在厨房的妈妈”，而他把正在洗刷的爸爸也画进了画中。

知道孩子们看待性别歧视是如此的可笑，让人有了不同的感悟。要是我们能克制自己，不把我们传承下来的想法强加在他们身上该有多好。

Dumas仲马

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，一个人在嘲弄法国大小说家亚历山大·仲马，讥笑他的祖先。 那家伙厉声说：“唔，你是四分之一黑白混血儿，你父亲是黑白混血儿，而你的祖父是个黑人。”“是的，”仲马大声回敬：“还有呢，如果你想知道的话，我的曾祖父是一只猴子。其实我的血统起始于你的血统终止的地方。”