Many social scientists view parents as influential agents of gender-role socialization (Dragowski et al., 2011; Iervolino et al., 2005; Kane, 2006). A child’s earliest exposure to what it means to be female or male is typically provided by parents. As we saw earlier, in the discussion of gender-identity formation, parents often have different expectations for girls and boys, and they demonstrate these expectations in their interactions (Eliot, 2009). In general, parents tend to be more protective and restrictive of girl babies and provide less intervention and more freedom for boys (Skolnick, 1992). Furthermore, research has found that sons are more likely than daughters to receive parental encouragement for selfassertion behaviors and for controlling or limiting their emotional expression, whereas girls receive more encouragement for expressing social-engagement behavior (Leaper et al., 1998). Recent research has also revealed that having a daughter, versus having a son, causes fathers to reduce their support for traditional gender roles (Shafer & Malhotra, 2011).
Although an increasing number of parents are becoming sensitive to the gender-role implications of a child’s playthings, many others encourage their children to play with toys that help prepare them for specific adult gender roles (Jadva, 2010). Girls are often given dolls, tea sets, and miniature ovens.
Boys frequently receive trucks, cars, balls, and toy weapons. Children who play with toys thought appropriate only for the other sex are often rebuked by their parents. Because children are sensitive to these expressions of displeasure, they usually develop toy preferences consistent with their parents’ gender-role expectations.
Although more and more parents try to avoid teaching their children gender stereotypes, many still encourage their children to engage in gender-typed play activities and household chores (Men — vielle, 2004). "The gendered division of household labor begins early in life with girls doing more household work than boys from childhood on" (Berridge & Romich, 2011, p. 157).