When these young people were asked about what they didn’t like in Scouting, both mentioned gender conflicts: the boys said they had to do all the work, the girls thought the boys
dominated. For the adult leaders, this was just a natural interaction between husband and wife – but the young people seemed to be more discontent with it. The areas of conflict were, of course, related to their age, but certainly also to the gender regime they live in. One thing is that the complementarity model prescribes strict roles and those who do not want to conform potentially generate conflict (such as domineering girls and lazy boys). Another thing is the dissatisfaction with the price of one’s own gender role, and the envy of the other. While each gender wanted to believe that the other admired their particularity, what the interviews revealed was rather the opposite: while the boys thought they worked all the time, the girls were dissatisfied with their lack of consideration and helpfulness. While the girls sought to appear as mysterious creatures and little kittens, the boys only wished they could do their share of the work or at least become better in sports! In this reciprocal reproach, however, we again see the face of asymmetry: the contempt for the stupid femininity is much stronger than the criticism of egoistic masculinity. And in this evaluation, the boys and the girls actually agreed, but they mostly elaborated on the flaws of the other gender.
The girls were critical of the boys’ ‘misbehaviour’. They mentioned the boys’ double-dealing: communicating with people they otherwise hated if it were profitable for them. They were also critical of Igor and his striving to be in the lead all the time, which put them in the wings:
Lyuba: He is not a bad guy. He is responsive, sometimes kind. But I feel there is something wrong about him. For instance, he wants to be the leader, an initiator of all affairs. He wants to replace the adult leaders. In reality he is like everybody else. So he argues all the time. We have a conflict with the boys because they’ll all follow Igor…
Dasha: They are afraid of him…
Lyuba: Yes, maybe that’s true. Very often he cries that he is the strongest. That’s why we have problems of that kind. But in principle everything is all right.
Question: Does it mean that Igor dominates among the boys? All: Yes, by all means…
He is nice when you speak with him alone, and he knows a lot, the girls say, but the minute the other boys come, he starts to show off. Their discontent is particularly connected to the way in which this boy makes himself the main character – and the girls the subordinates:
Dasha: In a large group of people he considers himself the leader. He thinks he is God and we are his slaves, ready to do everything for him.
Nadya: We don’t mean anything to him.
Lyuba: Sometimes he can insult people without even thinking about it. As if he is the centre of the universe and we’re not.
Boys hurt the feelings of girls, and their egocentrism and a girl’s vulnerability makes it difficult in practice for her to be a leader: As a leader of boys, a girl would get hurt, they could tell her to go to hell. Lesha, however, who was described as a boy who was very attentive to, and interested in, girls was judged more positively.
Interestingly enough, the boys (including Igor), agreed to a certain extent that the weak point of boys was their egotism, but they did not particularly see it as a problem in relation to girls:
Igor: The worst thing about boys is their extreme self-confidence and like, you know, egotism.
Misha: Like they think they are superior to others, which is often the case nowadays, I guess, it can be found in all countries.
Igor: See, there are lots of bad qualities, like, maybe impudence, or, that we are too cruel. Misha: Yeah, lots of things.
Igor: I think they are more selfish.
Misha: Self-confidence, like, you would often meet the belief that if you are stronger you can do everything.
Igor: Right. Like I’m the strongest at school, and some people are afraid of me, and I guess that’s bad, really bad.
This is, however, all they had to say about weak points of their own gender, while the weak points of girls were manifold, seen from the boys’ perspective. Girls might have a certain kindness, and they might be better in the kitchen (that is, if they put an effort into it), and in drawing. The boys did say a few nice things about Lena, and also acknowledged girls who, in spite of their general incompetence, tried hard to improve. Generally, however, they describe girls as not very clever, they ask stupid questions all the time, they do not read books, they are lazy, passive, fussy, hysterical, squealing, bawling, quarrelling, servile to teachers and easily fall under other people’s influence. They are dishonest with their friends, reveal secrets, don’t speak their opinion. Honesty, tolerance and true friendship belong to the male gender. The interviewer suggested that beauty might be a girls’ asset, but was immediately brought down to earth: character was more important than appearances and, sadly enough, a beautiful girl was seldom clever...
The boys did not have a high opinion of the girls’ contributions. Men are generally better cooks and girls often do not even make an effort to make a proper meal! The only thing girls seem to have any capacity for is picking all these endless flowers and berries, peeling potatoes and doing drawings. This is also the reason behind their frequent quarrels:
Misha: While all the boys work, the girls draw and lisp with all those ‘ahs’ and ‘ohs’!(...) Igor: Boys work more, they participate more in different games, and they win more often. The boys are made use of - for our patrol’s sake. But, of course, the girls can draw …and all that stuff (...)
Question: Are you satisfied with the way the chores are shared?
Igor: Nope! The boys work more than the girls do and that’s quite evident, you must do something about it. I mean, let them work a bit, not just lie and rest and then say you are not pleased with something. They should try hard, work, do what they can.
The girls were much more critical of their own sex than the boys were of theirs, and they saw themselves as a problem for boys: girls are capricious, and not as inventive as boys:
Lena: I don’t mean that our girls are very stupid and won’t be able to invent anything. I think there is a lot they can invent. But the boys’ brains work more quickly. They know better how to organise competitions, a sort of orienteering activity or some knot contest in which the aim is to find something.
They acknowledged that girls cannot provide sufficiently interesting conditions for boys in Scouting. Boys need more difficult things, but there could be ‘allowances’ (handicaps) for girls, for instance, in physical exercises. It can also be difficult for girls to be sufficiently considerate of the boys’ interests (the other way round didn’t appear as a problem):
Nadya: The most difficult thing when you are a patrol leader - and in addition if you are a girl - is to take into account the interests of all the members of the patrol, not to pay special attention to women’s interests’.
Both genders preferred mixed patrols – and both genders believed that girls were much more dependent on boys than the other way round (the little girls who did not want the boys to join are surely revolutionary in this context!). The boys thought it would be boring without the girls (as it was also possible to have fun with the girls) and, after all, ‘they do what they can to help us’. On the other hand, when a boys-only group attended a Jamboree, they found it really great! There each person did his share of the work. For the girls, a girls-only patrol seemed to be a gloomier prospect: boring and uninteresting. And boys are the ‘labour of the patrol’, how could they do without it? There would also be a lot of discussions about dress and make-up etc., which doesn’t happen as much when the boys are present. They would miss them, too. And they were quite sure that the boys would miss them also: ‘There are boys who can’t live without girls’. And if they are not appealing enough as mysterious little kittens, at least they could be useful as cooks: ‘How would the boys manage to peel two sacks of potatoes by themselves?’, they said, laughingly. They definitely did not want to be separate: ‘We must just learn how to understand the boys and vice versa!’
Although it is not easy to learn to become complementary, everybody (especially the girls), hope that time would help. When asked whether one should do anything to improve the relationship between boys and girls or leave it as it was, they placed their hopes on psychological development:
Dasha: No, we should not leave everything as it is. But I hope that when they grow older, they will become cleverer, more mature. Everybody says that.
Lena: In two or one-and-a-half years, they’ll be cleverer and they will treat us in a different way. They’ll become more courageous. They’ll say, ‘don’t bring heavy firewood. We shall do that. We are men’.
4.
Comments on the Russian case
In Russia we saw a strong belief in gender complementarity, both in the society at large and among the Scout leaders – and the young people are on their way to learn how to do gender with in such a frame. Structurally we see a rather strict division of labour, but also some efforts to transgress it. A problem, however, is that when the boys do girls’ work they want to be better than the girls and thus threaten an important basis of feminine self-esteem in the complemen- tarity system, and when girls try to do boys’ things they risk losing their femininity. On the symbolic level we see that the gender complementarity constitutes a hierarchy, where
masculinity is openly admired, while femininity is more taken for granted. On the interactional level this gives the lead to the boys and the role of adaptation to the girls. The only power position for girls seems to be as adolescent ‘queens’ – a position that depends on the boys’ approval of their sexual signals. On the personal level, we see that the different girls and boys identify to a different degree with this system, but that everybody seems to be somewhat ambivalent: the complementarity model has advantages, but there is also a price to pay. What regards gender conflicts the harmonious idea of two different halves that need and respect each other may have had a backside of vulnerability and dependency, envy and contempt? The sharp gender line seems to foster fear of weakness in boys, and dependency in girls. There is food for thought that both girls and boys actually long for some of the same: the boys would like to have a helping hand in the work, the girls would like to be allowed to be more active and independent.
What can be done to improve the situation of girls and boys within the complementarity model? There are basically two aspects to be aware of. One is to be more aware of how - and when - respect for difference becomes a hierarchy between differences. The other is to be more sensitive to each young person’s wish to transcend narrow gender conventions and help to make it possible.
Seen in relation to the norm of parity of participation, one should consider the following problems of redistribution and recognition.
Redistribution:
– The social contexts create different conditions for girls’ participation, compared to those for boys (money, household chores, less freedom). This may also be a point to make in relation to the increasing class differentiation in Russian society. How can Scouting minimise the unequal opportunities for participation resulting from unequal conditions in society?
– The gender-related division of labour may reduce freedom. An important tradition in Scouting is that each person should be able to survive autonomously. A strict gender division of labour may hamper this ideal. There also seems to be a contradiction between the Scout leaders’ adherence to values of freedom, self-development, autonomy, individual focus - and the lack of freedom inherent in the gender stereotypes.
Recognition:
– Be aware of the hidden hierarchy in the complementarity model. Why is girls’ work taken for granted, while boys’ contributions get public attention and praise? Why all this talk about men really being better even at women’s work? Take care that virtues ascribed to men are not automatically made the centre of humanity. Note how both boys and girls tried to make their own assets the most important ones in Scouting: those who do not fit in Scouting are those with the bad traits of the other gender, for girls: the egotists, for boys: the lazybones. – Maybe it is worth reconsidering how many aspects of the human repertoire one includes in
the complementarity model. After all, these are cultural norms, not nature. Why should a Russian girl be less fit to handle an axe, compared to her sisters in other countries? Why should her health be endangered by playing football? Can a big, strong girl really carry less than a little, weak boy? When is the ‘psychological development’ of the two genders actually more an empirical generalisation of the effects of Russian upbringing than something innate in the children?
– More attention should be paid to the non-stereotypical and individual desires of the young people: the girls who love sports and physical challenges in Scouting. The boys who want the girls to take part in the work.
– Perhaps the ‘strong woman’ in the Russian heritage could be a better model for girls in Scouting than the ‘weak sex’?