No more girls and boys; can our children go gender free? BBC 2 tonight

Men are physically stronger on average than women, but boys are not physically stronger than girls on average. Yet both the boys and girls thought that they already were.

What else will girls and boys see when they look at adults? Boys more likely to be engineers, president, astronauts etc. Girls more likely to be carers, cleaners, stay at home parents.
What will children assume about themselves and their abilities from this? Are they correct to do so?

@MrGHardy,

The difference is that this is an active agenda of erasing free thought and behaviours. The people pushing this idea actively want people to self censor and to speak only in pre defined acceptable language. People who stray from this language are shamed and risk their livelihood and careers. Children are to be indoctrinated with this rather than allowing them freedom and teaching them to think critically. It is imposing an idea rather than letting one emerge.

I am from a farming family and know full well how strong women are and how they can get stuck in. However I will never be as strong as my male farmer family and friends. That's a fact of life and stamping your feet, throwing toys out of the pram and indoctrinating children to believe this is harmful.

It's like how trans people ignore reality.

Sorry, Datun.

Not Datum. Doh!

The thing is, I do know emotional intelligence for all was a 'thing' in primary schools around 15 years ago. I wonder if other things have pushed it out? I think the media and books are big player. But i also, think that family and friends are the culprits. They should be the people to challenge what kids see. If they are oblivion to the issues to a degree where they reinforce the status quo.

I have tried to challenge it by boring books from the library that features a lot more girls in roles that I find acceptable. I sit there and read through books before taking them home. If there was a few words that I have problems with I tend to change it while reading it.

However, this hasn't stoped Dd saying things that has left me jaw dropped and sad. We went into the LEGO shop and she exclaimed, "we are in the boys shop mummy". She has lego at home, we build and construct things using different objects. She has fire engines and yellow diggers and dinosaurs are her favourite.

It would be interesting to see a movie where one of the marvel, dc comics male characters breaks down and cry. Now that will turn things on it head.
However, I could see the character being made to come across as gay to explain why they cried or having feminine emotional issues.

I caught the last few minutes of this last night (from the strength test) and just finished watching the whole programme on catch up with my 2 DC (aged 7 and 8).

I'm so glad they didn't just go down the 'ban all tutus, girls should be tough and strong like boys' route, and are putting equal value on all the children being kind, creative, sensitive, strong, confident, brave, etc.

I was shocked by the strength test expectations and "boys are strong, girls are weak" thing though. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, but I don't think DC's primary school is nearly as bad. I asked both DC this morning, before mentioning the show, who they thought the physically strongest and weakest children in their classes were (showing them a pic on my phone of the fairground whacker) and both gave non-gendered answers; 8-year old DS's was seemingly based on how big the children were, and 7-year old DD based hers on things she'd seen her friends do ("no one else could get it open, but X did"). Perhaps if they'd been asked in a classroom environment their answers would have been different though? DS did shout "I'd get 10!" when we watched the programme though... It was interesting what they said about age 8 being a turning point, as DS has changed so much this past academic year and is suddenly aware of 'needing' to appear 'tough' to be accepted by his peers.

I hope they look at media beyond just books, particularly with regards to the very narrow range of male role models available on tv and film, nearly all of whom are super tough and use violence to settle things. We are teaching our boys to be like this.

MrGHardy If we're talking about gender stereotyping in schools though it has to be acknowledged that girls outperform boys in every subject at GCSE except maths (where the difference is small).

Datum I didn't disagree with anything I just found that the bit I saw and the trailers had left me feeling uncomfortable. I felt that the kids were set up.

Then the clip I saw was where to draw and name the ballet dancer, mechanic etc. I saw most kids observing accurately that MOST ballet dancers are women. Subsequently we had the big reveal. I felt the kids and by extension their parents were not given much credit: the programme makers will put them right and save them from their wrong thinking. Ok I didn't give it a chance but I've wasted too much time on poor quality documentary recently!

It felt so contrived on the part of the film makers as so much is these days : it was like "Eat well for less!" I didn't think it was going to help discussions with my youngest boy so I turned over.

I think the other reason I was wary of watching with him was that in a family of science enthusiasts I don't want a programme about schooling reinforcing the notions that maths is hard, science is for a minority, and that identity is the overriding issue in life.

I love being a women and have found that many times I also enjoy putting a dress on. Me too. This is not the problem. It's the devaluing that is ascribed to feminine things that teaches subordination, resulting in low self esteem for women and used as judgment for how masculine and great men are. One being positive and the other being negative. When both should be equal with no reduction in those who are born male who prefer skirts, dresses and makeup, housework, childcare etc. Both activities ascribed to both gender should be looked as aspirational things with value and one not lesser or paid less.

noblegiraffe

Sad to think that to get most people to think about this issue is to show that gendered upbringing and stereotypes affect boys negatively.

And phoneywar are you seriously claiming this is a conspiracy to brainwash? Are you brainwashed? How is the current situation not in effect much greater brainwashing, in how explicitly and ubiquitously it pushes the boy/girl divide agenda. On this very thread we have a dad who is proud of his lad being so tall and masculine and helping out physically, dismissing his daughters as too weak to do it, all the while multiple women have commented they had parents who involved them in such work and they were able to do such work.

Cross post, Ekphrasis put it better!

Differences between men and women to do with periods, breastfeeding, testosterone etc are due to sex not gender, surely? And are not that relevant to seven year old boys and girls.

I don't want to pretend that sex differences don't exist, but I didn't see the program doing this at all.

People who think society is just fine as it is need to look at boys' GCSE results for English. 52.3% of boys passed English GCSE last year and 68.2% of girls did. That's a huge difference.
If boys can't think of any other words for emotions other than anger aged 7, then clearly that's part of the problem.

It does the country no good to have half of the male population unable to pass English GCSE and intervention needs to start early.

Sorry I haven't read the full thread but this does look interesting to me. I always had what you would probably call 'male hobbies' growing up. I am now the mother of two young boys who do very much so love cars, trucks, bikes etc. Although I do try to get them to play with other things without being pushy.

I call both my sons sweet pea and sweet heart. If I had daughters I would say the same.

I think reducing the differences which limit self-esteem and mental health (e.g. girls thinking they aren't as strong, boys thinking they can't be weak or show emotion) is important.
Ultimately though the world is based on gender and sex. Evolutionary it is there for a reason. Neither gender is better and often individuals are what presents the most difference, not gender. E.g. I know sensitive boys, feisty boys, arty boys, confident girls, sensitive girls etc etc...

As the world has developed we need strong gender roles less but as long as girls and boys know they aren't limited in any way or socially judged, they should then be free to make their own choices.
I'd hate my DD to be judged for reading a princess book as much as I'd hate my DS to be. I'd hate my DS to be told he shouldn't be aiming to be the main earner as much as I'd hate my DD to be.
If my DD wants to grow up to be a nurse or eventually a stay at home mum that is OK. As long as she knows she can do whatever career she wants and, if she works hard enough, can achieve.

I read earlier in the thread a comment that over-confusing gender to the extent children can't identify with one gender or another causes huge mental health issues as adults. I strongly agree with this point. It is in our biology and promoting equal opportunities is far different to promoting being gender neutral in every way to the extent a child's personality and identity is confused.

For example i can't imagine how you treat a woman being off work for heavy periods is possibly compared to any male scenario. - i don't get it really. A woman is off work due to health related issue. You would treat a man off work due to health related issue the same way - is it relevant that it's due to periods and not for example IBS, migrane, sciatica or anything else?

I liked the program.
I heard them discussing it on R4 PM, and felt very sad at hearing some of the clips (the "boys are cleverer because they become president more easily" bit especially ).
I also found it interesting how during the interview the presenter was at pains to say the program was not about gender identity, but about studying the sociological reasons for the differences between boys and girls.

I then forgot all about it, but DH put it on because he wanted to watch it and I thought it was very good - not perfect, but then it was only a one hour program, so how could they possible include all issues from all angles within that time frame?

I don't think it plays into trans ideology at all - quite the opposite, and I disagree with phoney in that I think the children's critical thinking skills were enhanced through the changes made - there seemed to be a lot of encouragement to ask questions about why they held the opinions they did. (Did you watch the program?) Challenging assumptions is always going to improve critical thinking, no matter what the final conclusions are.

It really only takes a few senior leaders in education to make these sort of changes in an LEA

The 'hidden curriculum' has been a thing for ages. I was taught about it when I trained 17 years ago. I just think many people can't see it until it's pointed out to them - and they see the consequences of it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_curriculum

Ekphrasis

No, I'm going to watch it with DS.

It will take about three hours, because he will have an opinion every five seconds.

You are quite right, maybe your daughters couldn't have done that. But then again, they had a stereotyping parent who never challenged them. Nor could many other non 6ft4 guys have done that either.

Yep - me (5') and my dad (5'5") sorted out my 8' fence posts that were in bad shape following high winds - we did call on DP (6'1") at one point to 'stand there and hold that up' because sometimes having a tall around makes things easier, but the skills were all among the shorties (DP isn't very practical), and we could have managed without DP if we had to - things like chopping wood, hammering, sawing etc. are as much (or more) about technique as strength in my experience.

I have a 3 and a 7 year old, and I was surprised at the level of boy/girl split in that school - DS's schools strove to avoid the dreaded boy/girl queues etc. which is one of the reasons I was so happy with them. They did excuse his handwriting for a bit longer than I was comfortable with (although they still did send him to OT - so perhaps they were just minimising for my sake) - in fact, the only sexist stereotyping came from the parents - boy/girl hampers in the Christmas raffle, comments on DS2 in pink dungarees or DS1 picking sparkly things etc.

And it does start early - DS2 announced he didn't want the 'girls stickers' and stuck to the fireballs and motorbikes ones until I pointed out that the 'girls' ones had gummy bears and jelly beans and sparkly butterflies. In many ways I'm lucky that DS1 is so wrapped up in his own little world that he just doesn't notice these things very much, so we're all a freeing influence on the much more desirous to conform DS2

Oh, and in case you think this is just an issue for women. There is a man who has started a thread saying he is thinking of abandoning his PhD. His reasoning is that he would like to start a family in the next few years and wants to be a stay at home dad.

And here comes the conditioning:

He understands, or gathers, that when a couple decide to have children, it is often the woman who will choose to be the main caregiver, because the man is usually the better earner. (Many threads on mumsnet bear this out. People make this decision often based on financial reasons).

His reasoning is that he doesn't want to be in a position, where his wife feels obligated to be the main caregiver, due to him out earning her. He has this (skewed) idea, that if he reduces his earning potential, he increases his chance of being a stay-at-home dad. By not becoming the default breadwinner, based on his salary.

So a man is thinking of jacking in his degree, reducing his potential, in order to lower himself to the level of a woman, so they can make choices over who stays at home, from a level playing field.

And although I think most people would think he was daft, you can easily see why he thinks this. Being a stay at home dad as a decision is so outside the box, he is attempting to limit himself in order to achieve it.