Single sex birthday parties

Yes, it is indeed natural, and good, between age 5/6 and 12/13. Freud and others said so.

Wrt the paper you linked:
"Research Gaps
We still know little about exactly how peers socialize young girls’ and boys’ behaviours....Longitudinal studies, in which children are observed and followed up over time, are needed to better understand same- and other-gender peer socialization."

There is a big chunk of that paper, from half way down the section called 'Conclusions' to half way down the section called 'Implications for Parents, Service Providers, and Policy Makers' that is completely lacking in footnotes, that is just the author pushing a (half baked) proposal that ignores the obvious -- children naturally and of their own accord choose to socialise with same sex peers. The conclusion that other sex socialisation is needed in order to make the world a better place is not supported by anything in the early part of the paper where it is noted that 'Longitudinal studies, in which children are observed and followed up over time, are needed to better understand same- and other-gender peer socialization'

And I meant quiet... not quite...arghh

I realise I am not very clear: I have never read about the link between 'natural' socialisation preferences in children/child development and gender roles. This was the point of linking some of the information I found useful when seeking for it myself.

almondpudding said: 'There is nothing critical of gender roles in that whole article'.

Both articles refer to relevant scholarship re gender stereotyping. I think we more or less agree that gender stereotyping can be damaging (although lots of other literature suggest that not conforming to the stereotype may be damaging too and have a relevant impact on mental health).

I have left both links as useful references regarding the nature versus nurture debate at a very basic level (the one I operate at; I have never really read about this before)

Yes mathanxiety. It is news to me. I have had an 'instinct' about it, not really read much about this particular angle of the topic. I have tried to understand arguments supporting single sex education without much success (not sure if it is related to the limitations of my lady brain, or my convictions, which are interfering with rational thinking).

Is this OK with you or shall I keep myself quite, until I reach the level (as my daughter with football) where I am good enough to play with you?
What' s your point? You have already sorted it out. Sex segregation is natural, and therefore, good. Freud said so.

There is quite a lot written on this. And, obviously, there is no clear conclusion about the origins of the children tendency to segregate, but lots of evidence about the negative impact on gender roles and children's development. [Camaleon]

Well yes, there is. Is it news to you?

And none of it has anything to do with genderisation, which of course is dangerous, but segregation is only an element of malign genderisation if the context is the assumption that boy groups are superior to girl groups.

Well that makes it clearer. Not.

Honestly, I'm no longer sure what is going one here < TwilightZone>

Imagine if someone poster "the girls in the class have no interest in football, science or maths" - I am pretty sure someone would call this as sexist! You have done exactly the same thing. [IceBeing]

If they didn't understand that sexism arises from the concept of gender, then yes, they might (sexism being the means by which the concept of gender is put into action). If they did understand what the terms mean then would rightly point to the malign influence of gender, because that is what the social construct of gender does to people. Sticking with biology otoh, means you have to actually prove anything you make up about male attributes vs female attributes.

If you admit the idea that there is such a thing as a lady brain, of course it makes sense that girls wouldn't want to do hard maths. Because in the hierarchical world of gender only boys do that.

dallas

I do appreciate that you have used the word "all" in previous posts, you just didnt in your last post

I know dallas

Its because you said

"The boys in dds class"

Instead of

"All the boys in dds class"

Did i get it right icebeing did i? Did i? Did i?

What on earth are you talking about IceBeing?

I said all the boys.

I said "the whole class of Year 6 boys"
I said "the boys wrote a petition that they ALL signed"
I said "none of them wanted to do yoga"
I said "DD doesn't play with the boys in her class, not at all"
I said "The whole class of Year 6 boys refused to do a term of yoga because it was 'too girly"

But you seem to be randomly posting words, none of which are in context or make any sense at all. Are you quite alright?

I don't think she was being sexist, so your imaginings don't accord with reality.

Unless of course when you said everyone you were actually making a generalisation, just as the poster you are criticising was making a generalisation?

And most people are able to understand that a generalisation is being made.

Eh? She did say all the boys. She said all the boys signed a petition and staged a sit in.

Ah so 'the boys in DD's class...' doesn't mean 'all the boys in DD's class...'?

Is this some new usage of the English language then? Because I think 'the boys in the class' does imply 'all the boys in the class'. You know like 'the boys in the class dressed up as super heros' or something. It is especially clear when the offending sentence is used as a justification for inviting NO boys to a party, and having NO boys in the class as friends.

You can pretend you didn't make a sexist statement but you did. Several of them. I guess if sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you didn't makes you happy then go to it. I imagine everyone else can see quite clearly that you did though.

It is sad though that you find making sexist statements and bringing up a sexist child to be such a huge joke.

I am once again exceptionally grateful my daughter doesn't go to school and hence won't be learning by example, from children like your DD, that single sex friendship groups are fine and that there is nothing wrong with excluding people from activities based on nothing but their sex.

There is nothing critical of gender roles in that whole article.

There is quite a lot written on this. And, obviously, there is no clear conclusion about the origins of the children tendency to segregate, but lots of evidence about the negative impact on gender roles and children's development. For instance, easy enough to read and with more bibliography Here and www.child-encyclopedia.com/gender-early-socialization/according-experts/peer-socialization-gender-young-boys-and-girls

Even if a majority of the boys in the class didn't want to do yoga it would not excuse you saying all boys in the class have no interest in yoga

The boys wrote a petition that they ALL signed and staged a 'sit in' rather than go to the lesson. Hence parents being called. So yeah, pretty sure none of them wanted to do yoga

(Although I suppose it is possible some did, but were 'bullied' out of it by their mates. Nothing like that came up in the investigation though.)

As for netball, it's played on the back playground and anyone from Years 3 upwards can join in. They play 'high fives' with runners. No boy has ever joined in so far. A couple have barged into the girls and tried to force them into playing basketball instead (whilst ignoring the basketball hoop on the side playground), but thankfully the lunchtime supervisors are on the ball.

If I was talking about a hypothetical situation, or a situation I had no personal knowledge of (oh look, like you are ), then I wouldn't say "all boys" or "all girls". Because I wouldn't know that would I, and that would make me foolish.

You really are a card

math Self segregation based on sex is a natural and normal stage of development when sexual development is on hold and other elements of personality are formed. It is a vital stage of development.

We still have nothing but your barefaced statement of this being true. It doesn't seem likely given the same phenomenon is mysteriously not seen in other cultures...and of course other cultures do not have the same problems with recruitment of women in STEM that we do.

You are sounding a little like the Americans wringing their hands about the impossibility of stopping regular mass shootings when they are one of very few countries that actually experience them.

Even if it is true (and please do provide evidence that it is) then as you say it is our job to minimise and reduce this. How exactly does holding single sex birthday parties, having different uniforms for boys and girls, having sporting activity artificially segregated etc. achieve that?

ex it is the definition of sexism to take something that is on average true for boys and assume it applies to ALL boys.

Even if a majority of the boys in the class didn't want to do yoga it would not excuse you saying all boys in the class have no interest in yoga.

So you saying The boys in DDs class do not want to play netball, nor do they want to choreagraph dances or write songs for performances. is transparently sexist because you are assuming something that may well be true for some or even the majority of boys is true for all the boys.

Do you really not understand that?

Imagine if someone poster "the girls in the class have no interest in football, science or maths" - I am pretty sure someone would call this as sexist! You have done exactly the same thing.

As I said there is no need to go looking for sexism that doesn't exist when people will happily churn it out and then come over all puzzled confused and sometimes aggresive when you point it out.

What all of them? You have checked with every single one of them? Because if you haven't then you are simply stereotyping in an obviously sexist manner

Gosh you really don't like your POV being challenged do you? You know, that's not really anything to hold pride in. There was a Relationships thread going on yesterday about a man who simply Would.Not.Be.Wrong. Consensus was overwhelmingly LTB

But no, I haven't asked each and everyone one of them - because I'm not a 10 year old in the playground, I don't care if they play netball or not when I'm at work . However, considering that the whole class of Year 6 boys REFUSED to do a term of Yoga because it was "too girly" leading to parents being called in and so on, I think I have a pretty good idea of how they feel.

But please, feel free to continue to see sexism where is doesn't exist.

icebeing

Not all schools, certainly not my children's and as i stated before

Ds1 mainly female friends

Dd mainly female friends

Ds2 mainly male friends

In school they mix much more with the opposite sex its outside of school that their close friends seem to be one or the other

Sadly ds1 would like more male friends but has no idea how to make them

Again all the above is my children only, i am well aware that some schools have different uniform rules

RomiiRoo:
The point math makes if I understand correctly, is that you can impose external markers of gender but that does not change born sex. A boy is still a boy if he behaves in a way society deems 'female'. My son wants to wear nail varnish, he is still my son.
Yes, that is exactly what I intended to convey.

Self segregation by sex between age 5/6 and 12/13 is not sexism, IceBeing. Sexism arises from the concept of gender, which is always a tool for establishing hierarchy. Sexism is the display of power by one sex over the other. Acknowledgement of differences arising from sex does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a hierarchical arrangement.

Self segregation based on sex is a natural and normal stage of development when sexual development is on hold and other elements of personality are formed. It is a vital stage of development.

For this reason, we educate ourselves about development before posting left, right and centre about alleged sexism in childhood self segregation, especially if we have children ourselves and try to engineer social lives for them that we may consider politically correct but that are actually contrary to normal and natural development.

cam I think your points are good ones. Why do we impose a higher standard or expectation of challenging sexism on adult environments than on children's environments?

If someone told me as a woman working in a male dominated profession that there were different expectations on me regarding what I wore than on my male colleagues I would haul them up on sexism allegations immediately.

But an impressionable 4 yo is expected to go to a school 5 days a week and be asked to wear different clothes if they are male or female, and often have different rules and regs about hair length and piercings etc.according to their sex. Even at that young age they are often required to get changed separately and in many cases will go out to play or lunch or do sport by sex grouping also - again apparently for lazy number splitting reasons.

Schools do a huge amount to unnecessarily accentuate and invent difference by sex where none need actually exist.

It is not at all surprising that after a few years of this sexist treatment, children are mostly segregated out in female and male groupings.

The boys in DDs class do not want to play netball, nor do they want to choreagraph dances or write songs for performances.

What all of them? You have checked with every single one of them? Because if you haven't then you are simply stereotyping in an obviously sexist manner.

You are certainly correct that there is no need whatsoever to seek out sexism or invent it - it is all right there in black and white.

I really don't know what is natural, but we do have something called gender and I suspect there is a biological/behavioural reason for it.
Perhaps our brains need to assign gender at some point in our lives.
Perhaps we go through a rejection phase of the other sex (and things associated with the other sex) as we assert our independence from our parents by rejecting them and what they do during the teenage years. And then we go back.

Which is different from asserting one sex as superior to the other, btw.