Parenting a boy is a feminist minefield!

I know the discussion has moved on, but I've been thinking some more about the attainment gap between girls and boys at school.

It occurred to me that children have been starting full-time education in the UK from the age of 4/5 for a lot longer than the attainment gap favouring girls has existed. It used to be the other way round.

There have been a lot of studies showing that many teachers used to pay more attention to the boys in their class, have more positive interactions with them etc. Once this was widely recognised, a lot of work was done with teachers to make sure girls and boys are treated equally in the classroom.

So I was wondering if boys have always underachieved at school (because of the early start), or if the handicap of the early start when it comes to boys was compensated for by excess attention from class teachers - at the expense of the girls.

Once upon a time, boys took pride in being "brighter" than their female peers and although "swot" has always been a teasing term in schools, it didn't become "girly swot" until the tipping point was reached in terms of girls' schooling achievements starting to outdo boys'.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting teachers go back to the bad old days of ignoring the girls in their classes in favour of paying attention to the boys....

And nor am I suggesting that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction with teacher interactions with girls being preferred over interactions with boys (in fact, in some types of classes taught by certain types of teachers, boys are still given more attention than the girls - recent studies suggest that many female maths teachers and many male literacy teachers tend to favour interactions with boys over girls).

Anyway, it got me thinking....

SaF

Sanjeev an illustration of how an otherwise powerless male might choose to lash out at the only person he has any sort of control over.
And the only person he has any sort of control over is a woman from the same socio-economic background as him. A woman.
You see what you said, here?

Although, incidentally, that "powerless" man could equally exercise power over women from any social strata by dint of his superior muscular strength and (usually) size.

sorry - more.

so when black men fight against racism they can only temper racism. they're attacking the icing not the cake and effectively saying we want to ditch racism but keep sexism. that means the system stays strong, racism lessens, or becomes more covert, but nothing is really challenged and the ruling class remains in place with barely a wobble.

when gay men fight against homophobia and for more rights for gay men they too are attacking their bit of the icing with similar results, civil partnerships emerge, anti discrimination law etc but the cake remains.

so in a system of oppression those groups (or the males of them) get clauses written into the system - can't do x to gay/black/jewish etc men etc. but nothing really changes except more and more complex negotiations of exceptions and small groups (of men) winning their freedom from the most overt forms of oppression that were effecting their group historically. but we still live in an exploitative system with a very rich ruling class still going strong and just searching further afield or for new groups that they can exploit and for new ways, more covert, of exploiting people. using labour forces in the third world to prop up your mass profits in the west with cheap labour exploitation springs to mind.

the thing with feminism is we're not a special interest group in the sense that these other groups are - we are universal, we are black, we are white, we are muslims, we live in the west, we live in sub saharan africa, our interests and concerns are everything, the whole damn cake.

that should say the only exploited class - obviously men cover all of those groups too but they only recognise their single issue whilst still benefiting from the foundation stone of the whole system of oppression through the maleness which they are unlikely so far to see and fight against.

and women actually are the only 'class' who cover the whole planet and every social class, economic group, ethnic group etc etc etc so that we are the prime candidates to see the problem as the joined up, widespread, pan historical issue it is and to be able to fight it as a whole rather than just from one single issue concern front. re: black women, white women, asian women, rich women, poor women, educated women, uneducated women, young women, old women, gay women, straight women etc etc etc. there isn't an group out that that we don't represent and that we don't come off worse under than our male counterparts. so which group do you think is best placed to fight systems of oppression?

many also see gender inequality as the foundation of all other inequality. not only has it been around the longest, happened in every country/ethnic group/class etc etc etc it is also the basis on which all other 'othering' is built.

a child is born and inequality is immediately laid out by which genitals it has. right from the moment of birth there has for thousands of years been a system of marking out a 'class' for exploitation. then as societies grew more complex that grew into also creating social hierarchies. as colonialisation became possible that same demarking of 'classes' for exploitation was transposed onto skin colour and what area of the world you lived in and on and on and on.

but the foundation stone is the oppression of women. from that all other oppression grew with the original one standing strong throughout so that in every 'new' class created within that class there was still the bedrock of the first. many persuasively argue that this is a tool of control with more privileged men keeping less privileged men happy - to give them power over 'their' females and to not interfere with how they treated 'their' women.

it is the template that all 'othering' and exploitation is shaped from and it is the the 'sweetener' in the deal historically that every man shall have a woman to oppress in his own home and in the brothel or backstreet if he wishes.

Sanjeev I think you'll find there are plenty of people on this forum who are very aware of how various forms of discrimination and privilege intersect to cause the social problems we have. In fact, feminists and other activists for social justice have a term for it, Intersectionality.
There's some more info here and lots of feminist and womynist writers use about it.

When you say Sometimes the feminist chat on here is rather bleak and depressing, as though the women here believe that every man is actively involved in subjugating every woman. And that is not the case. it sounds supiciously like you're trying to tell us to cheer up because someone else has it worse than use. Which is a silencing technique often used to stop feminists talking about womens' liberation, but trust me, will not work here.

However I am a helpful sort of person and so, as well as giving you that bit of information I will give you this. We believe that patriarchy is an institution that has successfully infiltrated all aspects of our lives after thousands of years of practice at it. We don't think that " every man is actively involved in subjugating every woman" - a ridiculous thing for those of us married to and raising men to think - but we do know that every man is able to passively benefit from social subjugation of every woman. Hence our insistence that every man in our lives actively resists patriarchal influences, so they do not passively benefit from the subjugation of women.

Don't believe me? Think about a slave in Jamaica in 1850, and a coal miner in England that very same year. The white British coal miner isn't personally enslaving the black plantation slave, is he? He's not buying or selling that slave's family, he's not personally wielding a whip. But does he passively benefit from the British kidnap and enslavement and murder of generations of African citizens? You BET he does. In 1700 sugar was still a luxury commodity. In 1850 the coal miner can afford to have it in his tea three times a day. His white privilege means he passively benefits from being white, even if he lives his whole life without uttering a racist remark or harbouring a racist thought.

The poor man in your (rather sneery) generalization above is indeed socially above any woman in his exact socioeconomic class, because of the patriarchy, he has male privilege. There's no point comparing a white binman and a black doctor who is a woman, that's slinging in too many variables. Compare a white working class school leaver who is male with a white working class school leaver who is female, and there you see inequality. Compare a black woman surgeon with a black man surgeon, and there you see inequality. I agree with you that male privilege is one of many demarcations of unjust advantage and subjugation, but I am not going to take that as a suggestion that I should therefore cheer up and stop being 'bleak' about sexism, because male privilege (and women's liberation from it) is the one this forum exists to discuss.

The slap wasn't humorous. It was an illustration of how an otherwise powerless male might choose to lash out at the only person he has any sort of control over.

Secondly, this website is full of sneering stereotypes - e.g. rich white males, violent young males, misogynist rappers, swots, geeks, cheats, rapists, sexual abusers etc etc. There was a thread earlier from a woman worried about a friend about to embark on an affair. One poster immediately jumped in and said (paraphrasing) 'tell your friend not to go with this man - he is a cheat, a liar and he is using her'. Conveniently missing the point that the man in question was single and unattached, and the woman was married with kids. That happens on here all the time.

err i think the woman getting a 'slap' might not see it as quite as trivial or humorous as you seem to sanjeev.

you're also spewing a whole lot of sneering stereotypes there.

'not just a minority of rich white men' - absolutely! Sometimes the feminist chat on here is rather bleak and depressing, as though the women here believe that every man is actively involved in subjugating every woman. And that is not the case.

The poor white boy/man on the council estate does not get up every morning and think 'how shall I expand my magnificent male empire today?' ! He is as downbeaten, downtrodden, put-upon and exploited as the women around him. Well, he might half a rung higher up the ladder, due to him being able to 'give 'er a slap' when he has had nine stellas too many, and she is a stella behind him and won't shut up about the rent, or the loan shark, or the vet treatment for the two rottweilers. But if you think that this man is your enemy, the one standing in the way of women's rights, you are looking in the wrong place for the enemy.

Who has more status and power in our society - the white female doctor or the white male lorry driver? What about the black female doctor or the white council-house postman - is there more or less of a gap?

OP, teach your son that there is gender inequality, racial inequality, socio-economic inequality, a north/south divide, street violence, a media trying to beat him down with ground-breakingly stupid non-news and celebrity culture, and a new generation of teens who's ambition is to be on Saturday night prime-time TV for 15 minutes. If he asks, 'So what is the point of living?', what will you tell him?

No, it's not quite as big a battle as that for equality.

The one for equality has been going on for thousands of years and if present trends continue, will go on for thousands more.

The one to encourage people not to embrace idiocy will probably be won first as there isn't quite the same kneejerk reaction to the suggestion that people using their brains is desirable, as there is to the idea that the world should be organised for the ease of functioning of all of humanity, not just a minority of rich white men.

The anti-intellectual culture is driven by the media, and is encouraged by parents who indulge their kids with endless Simon Cowell/OK magazine/Big Brother celebrity culture. I wont have it on while I am in the house. It is aimed at both genders, and is designed to keep people fat, happy and stupid. Schools do their best to fight it, but while parents allow it, we will have a majority of the population who will aspire to little more than minimal educational achievement, low wages, and a piss-up and a punch-up at the week-end. This is at least as big a battle as gender inequality.

Well done Basil's ds!

I'm sure he does very good long-suffering looks when you lecture him but it's good to know it's all sinking in.

That's pretty smart too - the advice not to use the word gay. He will go far.

My DSs are now 12 &13 with a big sister DD aged 16. I think its been a bit easier to raise them all as feminists having them in that order... both boys, especially DS2 look up to their sister, who has never really been a pink sparkle girl. they see me having a worthwhile job outside the home as well as mumming them & we habitually discuss the news from a feminist perspective. With the onset of puberty (the horror!) I've discussed pornography with DS1, how women are portrayed in the media etc. I know he will look at porn out of curiosity, but he will hopefully be mindful of the extremely explotative nature of porn & that the women in porn won't bare any relation to women he may encounter in real life when they're older.

Ds1 has always been quite boisterous, sporty, interested in martial arts & weaponry, more traditionally masculine. He's very emotionally aware & creative. DS2 took two years of ballet when we lived in a fairly rough area, where merely not liking football was enough to define you as 'gay' he still dances everywhere, makes clothes for an old 1960s sandy-doll I bought in a charity shop & is currently watching glee. DD is kick-ass with a huge sense of justice. They've all been brought up to believe they can do anything they want with their lives...

(apologies shoddy grammar, long post on phone!)

i agree with it not being cool to be smart/achieve at school for a boy, my ds1 has had this, he is called a geek, etc because he does do well, luckily now in high school he has found a niche group of friends who are equally 'geeky' for want of another word and they ignore it.

and immaculada i wsa wondering if there was the same girl/boy discrepency in results in schools with a later starting age but havent found anything on it on a quick google search.

incidentally we are lucky that my boys primary actually has a good number of male teachers, ds3 had one in yr one and now ds2 has one in yr 5 and it has been great for ds2 actually, plus dp reads a lot and still studies with his job so the boys see that at home.

my issue of the day having just flicked through tv channels once the kids were in bed is the awful nature of pop/music videos and the influence they must have, my kids dont watch them, but plenty do and on the one hand i think its just a music video and on the other the images are so sexualised and the women are all so perfect in shape etc and the clothes they wear, well if you can call them clothes! and even if kids dont even 'think' about the images they see, what kind of messages are they getting from them?! not healthy ones thats for sure!

Have just had a moment of pride about ds(12)

DD was saying how someone in her class had called her and her friend gay because they wouldn't play ball or something and the playground supervisor woudln't do anything about it and she was annoyed. DS said "well he's homophobic, so tell the woman he was being homophobic instead, don't complain about being called gay because then you're just as homophobic as him, there's nothing wrong with being gay."

His catholic secondary school is obviously not having much of an impact on him.

As well as telling this story because I'd like to boast about my DS, this is another thing - this homophobia which it's very difficult not to buy into because when you're that young, fitting into the man box becomes ever more urgent and the idea of being ostracised by your peers and not being accepted, is truly horrifying and frightening. As well as being horribly lonely and isolating to be considered the odd one out, it is potentially dangerous - the culture of violence with which males are brought up, ensures that every now and then things do spill over into fisticuffs and you're going to be on the end of it far more frequently if you're not part of the group. So daring to stand out from the crowd and be original and different in your opinions and outlook, can actually be a really big deal and we're all aware of that and so again that presents us with a dilemma in terms of trying to steer a course between properly socialising our sons so that they can make friends and be happy at school, and trying to help them avoid the horrible man-box they are forced into by their peers and the rest of society.

Basil I think you just expressed what I was trying to say much more eloquently! Yes, I think there's a lot in what you say.

There is a massively anti-intellectual culture in Britain, which even in grammar schools where kids have specifically been chosen because of their academic ability, means that there is a fear of not being considered a swat. I suspect that the pressure of this weighs more heavily on boys than on girls - girls don't have to do macho posturing.

I suspect it's not the school system that needs to change (although I do think it needs to change just in general, not for reasons of inequality in grades though), it's society as a whole. Stop telling boys it's not cool to be clever, stop telling them thinking is bad, stop requiring them to be simplistic and stupid and they will stop shying away from achieving in the classroom in case they look un-cool in front of their mates.

The education system can't do this on its own. It needs a bit of help from the rest of us.

4Mad Cordelia Fine has a lot to say about why there are disproportionate numbers of men in the higher strata of education. I think it's called the "conveyor belt effect" - men in female-dominated professions are often promoted more quickly into management positions.

The vast majority of men who go into teaching prefer secondary level (my DH is one - in his case, he just happens to like teenagers and generally has a good rapport with them) - primary level isn't as desirable, possibly because that level has ALWAYS been female dominated, which makes it a less appealing part of the profession for men to join. And yes, there's something to be said for the effect on boys of seeing men getting enjoyment from schoolwork. Lise Eliot mentions a school in the US where a local policeman goes in every day to read a story to the children. She says the effect of seeing a "guy with book in one hand and gun in the other" tends to give reading a whole different cachet for the boys in the class.

Incidentally 4Mad if you regard yourself as an "equalist" when it comes to gender, I would say that's a feminist in my book..!

I think the starting age of schooling is probably a highly relevant point when it comes to boys' general underachievement. I would be interested in what the gender gap is (if any) among children in Germany where they don't start school until the age of 6 and Finland where they leave it until age 7.

Sanjeev I'm still somewhat confused as to what exactly you're asking, but suffice to say, creating a "level playing field" is not as simple as may first appear (see stereotype lift/threat as mentioned above etc.).

It's clearly important that both girls and boys are encouraged to achieve to the best of their abilities. And of course, plenty of boys do exactly that. It may be that (starting age notwithstanding) schools do generally provide a level playing field for girls and boys to do equally well - DH is a trainee teacher and it's something educationalists take very seriously. But there seem to be other social pressures which are discouraging large numbers of boys to apply themselves as enthusiastically as they might otherwise to their schoolwork.

I think feminists generally agree that removing the kind of damaging, repressive gender stereotyping that holds back girls and women should also ultimately benefit boys too, as I suspect many don't fulfill their academic potential because of the boxes they find themselves in.

So, in answer to the OP, feminist parents of boys should ideally set about dismantling gender stereotypes at every opportunity for their sons - and promote "feminine" values as being aspirational - both of which can be of huge benefit for boys in the longer term. One would hope those attitudes would also encourage them to grow into egalitarian, men, so that would be beneficial to women as well. And to society as a whole.
But as the OP states, it can be a bit of a minefield.

well for one i would have kids start school later, but i would do that regardless of sex.

i dont think the school system means to be sexist or is inherintently sexist, ie in the way it seems to favour girls.

it does seem sexist in that there are LOADS of female teachers, particularly at primary level, but not many female HT and then at high school there are more male teachers but i am not sure what the balance is %wise between male/female teaching staff? I am not sure what you can do to change the fact that some professions are seen as a more 'female' thing i e nursing and teaching?

i dont know if i would call myself a feminist or not? i see myself as a parent and an 'equalist' if there is a word for htat i want to bring my children up fairly and equally to respect ALL people regardless of sex, race, religion, culture etc etc. the boy/girl thing doesnt seem to come into it too much, just encouraging them to be themselves from sports mad ds2, to ds3 who is mad for tinkerbell and fairies and has worn a pink silk party dress to school on non-uniform day, some mnetters were horrified by this, i shouldnt have let him apparently! i just support them to be confident in who they are and encourage them to have empathy and respect for others.

And I still don't know what anyone else thinks.

Yes I am.

So you're not a feminist then?

No I don't know the answer. That is why I asked. Plus, I am interested in the opinion of others.