This is wrong isn't it? Help me articulate why.

If they've moved the boys because they are boys, then that is unacceptable.

If they've moved them because of their 'spirited' behaviour, then fine. I would expect a girl to be removed from the football activity if her behaviour was naughty 'overly spirited'. I would expect any child to be removed from any activity if they couldn't behave themselves.

The fact they've restricted it to just girls by moving the boys who signed up proves its not equal!! Would they do the same if a girl had chosen football?? That in itself it enough to base a complaint on

It sounds like they let the kids choose what the activities were? I don't like the term 'pampering', but the actual activity sounds ok. There are a good range of choices and as long as all the kids are free to choose whichever they like I don't really see a problem. I agree with your post feminist DD.

Moomin oh dear my argument may not hold much truck then:)

They are too young to be doing their nails. That's what's wrong with it.
Amongst other things. Like 'pampering' not being either sporty or especially creative.

Ugh. Pampering for primary school girls is just ugh. Except in a play dressing up way.

If they are changing the activities each term (did I read that right?) then the impact of this choice will be less. And it does seem as if the aim is lighter fun stuff as well as sports etc.

But I still think its a dubious choice as it is excessively frivolous compared to the other choices and is tied in to appearance and body image (often thorny areas).

If they wanted to do something 'girly' (ugh, but if they're trying to provide a range of activities I can see where they're coming from), then I hope sports other than football are available some terms, and perhaps you could suggest some other things like jewellery making or knitting which teach new skills.

Pampering doesn't seem very creative (though I suppose it could be if it's hair and nails) and the least academic of the options. Though, if they were going to raise money for charity, they could at least learn some business skills along the way? Or am I just clutching at straws?!

OK so if you are feeling combative then a copy of their equality etc policy and an appt with the head is the start.

If the head was asked "do you agree with sexual equality blah blah etc" they will say YES.

And then hit them with the FACT that they are sexist tossers.

Not too fucking diffiucult to come up with primary school stuff that will appeal to all.

Have to say I like sooperdoopers face painting idea. It's more fun and a fair bit more creative and I think would also have a wider appeal. You could see them being able to do end of term plays with full stage makeup included prosthetics with a bit of help.

I also think that pampering is linked in with class culture stuff to. I can't imagine there is lots of working class/under class women that are going regularly for mani/pedis/blow dries. It's aspiration in a way that being good at football or netball or hockey or swimming isn't because it's about having pure leisure time and I don;t think that is the reality for lots and lots of women and men.

It's the passivity that annoys me. OK at that age they will need some help but there should be direction from the child as to what is to be 'done' to them - perhaps it should be 'body art' !?

But should be an activity i.e. something the participants are actively involved in. Stage makeup or health studies would be better I think.

It's all kinds of wrong.

... and that's coming from someone who disagrees with 90% of the threads in this section. That tells you something.

I tell you something else - I rather wish I'd gone to school now instead of when I did - an entire afternoon building Lego or playing with plasticine - Bring It On!! and they wonder why so many kids get to 11 and can't read

I think nails and stuff is a bit inappropriate for primary aged girls - the boys won't be practising shaving like their dads will they. Of course not, they don't have stubble yet and they are too young.

Yeah, if they called it dressing up it could cover still cover hair and nails, but play costumes, and face painting too, that's a much better idea

Sounds fairly balanced, covers all options - not all kids want to play sport, build things or critique films. Some kids want to do what they see their parents doing - and surely that includes mum doing her nails, hair & makeup?

If they're saying that "Boys can only do these and Girls can only do these" then there's an issue, but if all subjects are open to all pupils isn't that what equality is about?

I think it's the word 'pampering' that makes me feel icky. My 5yo DD loves having her nails painted, playing at hairdressers, facepainting etc so I wouldn't have a problem with the activity necessarily as long as it was open to boys too. But they need another name! Why not just call it dressing up, at that age that's what it is.

YANBU, I think DD1(15) and not very girly would see where you are coming from. I'm not sure my mor girly 12y would. Even though she'd quite possibly choose to play football.

I have a uphill struggle with feminism and DD2, because she was quite comfortable playing with toy cars and doing ballet, football, netball and rugby, doesn't mean all girls are.

Or more to the point that boys are happy with them doing so and offering pampering at primary really gives the wrong idea of girls worth to boys at a very impressionable age.

My ds2 loves arranging my hair and so does my dd. And I love it when they do. And vice versa (although not so true of ds2) Both my sons love foot massages though. I think grooming (not a good word, but you know what I mean) comes naturally to most animals (I'm thinking of my cats who spend hours washing each other) including humans.

The word pampering is a trite, fluffy word, but I think what they are intending is a a kind of creative nurturing activity, surely? Artistic but being attentive to each other. And it is something we are bit wary of nowadays but in most societies they spend hours doing the same. It doesn't have to be devalued as pointless or just to please men.

I think the boys should be allowed to join in this activity though. It just needs to be worded differently. Stage makeup? Dressing up? Hair dressing? Physiotherapy? Sports Massage?

Yep I have no problem with sewing at all, for example. Predominantly aimed at the girls I would imagine but useful even if I hate it.

What would be cool would be to get the boys to do traditionally girls activities and vice versa. Might be enlightening.

If it was teens and aimed at hair & beauty that can be taken into a hairdressing qualification for example it would be more acceptable - and many men become hairdressers too (although maybe that will be the response you get from the school?)

I agree it's wrong, it's not actually teaching them anything valuable apart from if you put lippy on you're more attractive/worthwhile. It's a passive activity aimed primarily at the girls, whereas all the other activities could be seen as aimed at both (although football I suppose is going to be predominantly seen as something only the boys do)

I also wouldn't consider it creative in the same way sewing, Lego modelling or plasticine modelling are.