Should I complain to the school?

Not all role models are made equal. I'd go for Bouddica...

Hah, yes, awesome.

There certainly were as many women in the history of that place as there were men, anything else would be biologically unlikely.

Possibly not as many women whose achievements are still known about, but if you dig, I am sure you can find some woman who did something at least somewhat remarkable. Like writing reasonably well-known books.

As for role models ... I don't know many women I would recommend a girl to emulate in all things, but Sophie Scholl was pretty awesome when it came to political resistance. (In Germany, there's no way I would let a school get away with claiming they couldn't find a famous woman. Every place has at least one woman who resisted the nazis, you'd only have to dig out the names.)

If you can find more women, they may make a big deal out of studying them. Which will probably be a more than adequate counterpoint to the house names.

Just try googling your town's history. There is a website that lists famous people by town. Some of them absolutely not household names.

And think about the letter. You can add in quotes from people like Cordelia Fine. But take your time over it.

I don't see why it's too late to change, have they not heard of the erratum slip?

oooh yes, Ada Lovelace
Or Mary Anning

I cant believe we are still fighting these battles in 2017. Well done OP.

It sounds like they are prepared to go for lesser known figures for the sake of a local connection. I really can't believe there are not 2 women who will fit these criteria, it's just that they don't know about them. Can you track down a local historian who might have some ideas? try the local library, if they don't know they may know who WOULD know. Otherwise I would suggest that the school favour inspiring and validating girls over promoting local history, and I propose Rosa Parks and Elizabeth Garret Anderson.

I agree with you. Dd's school has two men and two women as the house names. I don't see why they have to stick to the local area.

I'm vastly irritated on your behalf, though.

If it's any help, I think you need to change the way you approach this.

Instead of being 'that parent', perhaps you should market yourself as the parent who is going to help them avoid falling behind the times and looking regressive and old-fashioned.

If you are going to reply, use words like progressive, inclusive, stereotyping, etc. And if you can manage to sound like an authority on it, so much the better.

Although, to be honest, I'd struggle as I'm not au fait with enough buzz words to sound credible.

I think you're going to have a busy few years, OP!

I completely agree that that is a very carefully constructed reply to minimise what is basically sexism.

What comes across to me is that he is not really aware of his sexism. He has tried to justify a sexist decision, and of course the explanation is full of holes.

Then you've got this:

We will also be championing the work of Stonewall in our academy so that all our children recognise that every family is different in its make-up, and that there is no ‘normal’ family set up.

He is trying to show you his 'progressive' credentials, but whilst I used to admire Stonewall, it has now been taken over by the trans lobby.

And the way trans is being explained to children is to use a hotch potch of theories which essentially underpin gender stereotypes.

I feel for you, OP. Because, however nice he is, in a way he has made it worse. And if you want to take it further, you are going to be stepping into 'that parent' territory.

Which is galling all on its own.

Waffle waffle waffle.

Agree, change the category!

Oh and it's always bloody Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. While they were extraordinary, their achievements are very much within the conventionally 'feminine' sphere, i.e. looking after others. Not all role models are made equal. I'd go for Bouddica...

OP has already said there are nelly.

I agree with PP "we never intended to be sexist but were not willing to change what we do to ensure it doesn't happen".

I wonder what other issues will be resolved using the same ethos.

I'd be unwilling to let it lie tbh OP. I hate that sort of placatory bullshit. Parent govenors are elected by the parents btw, not the staff, so I wouldn't worry on that account.

Hmmm. They tried, did they?

Not hard enough! And like assassinated says, they bent the criteria to shoehorn a man in, but couldn't do that for a woman.

I'm too distracted by other stuff for composing thoughtful things today, but I'm sure the collective here can help you craft a suitable response that says "the way you've replied, while lovely and all, actually illustrates what I was on about" .

I think you're right to be pursuing this, by the way. Takes courage.

So, to summarise, we made up some arbitrary rules, we didn't hold to them and we don't care about whether we chose women or not.

Which I would also read as telling me that a) the ethos of the school is set and you're not going to get any say in it and b) it's not very women friendly. The message they are sending is appalling.

You might want to make friends with these people - or rather one rather brave girl fighting a similar battle in her secondary school.

www.change.org/p/rooms-of-our-own-equal-gender-representation-in-school

Personally, I think this should be either illegal, or rendered the subject of so much mockery that no one ever does it again. Either will do me just fine.

Well they're after local historical figures so maybe theyre aren't any female ones local to you?

The reasoning is inconsistent. They couldn't choose women because there weren't any suitable (in their opinion) that met the criteria of being born in your county. But they could choose the prominent man who wasn't born in the county, because he was particularly relevant in their opinion. So what was stopping them choosing the prominent women that you mentioned, given that a particular prominence is sufficient to override the birthplace criteria for men?

And indeed, as you mentioned, change the category if it's so narrow as to exclude all women! Clearly including women is a lesser concern to them than being able to stick to their self-defined category.

It's a nice long reply, but it basically boils down to "we chose the men we wanted, we think that's fine and we're not going to change it. Here are some crumbs about women on the curriculum to make you feel better."

This bit is just laughable: "It was never our intention, and never would be, to only choose male House names. " But that's exactly what they did!

His point was that the houses will simply just be meaningless names to the children

Maybe to most at first and to some throughout but certainly not to all - your daughter is already showing it's unlikely to be the case to her given she notices lack of female characters in books. I also expect the school may have information on the people the houses were named after which as you say may be discussed in assembly one day; even if they're not aware of it many children will probably take in the message that all who were deemed impressive enough were men. This would be bad enough anyway but is even worse when they had such notable local women to select.

Even the houses at my brothers' school being named letters of the alphabet isn't as bad

Absolutely shinynewusername. It's quite disheartening junerat's husband was so dismissive of her concerns - not only to tell her she's talking nonsense but a lack of concern for the messages this could send to their daughter as well (not that it should take having a daughter for sexism to bother men). It's fantastic their daughter is far more aware of these issues and is already noticing and challenging sexism!

Good on you, OP. I think you have raised a bloody good point with them.