Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Getting a tiny bit feminist on the teacher's ass!

364 replies

SolidGoldBrass · 20/02/2013 00:47

I didn't raise my voice. I didn't unshave my legs or anything.
It just so happened that DS and I bumped into his class teacher at the playground this afternoon and we had a pleasant chat; the teacher turns out to have DC of her own, of a similar age to DS. She mentioned something about girls being very different to boys. I very very gently said that this was in fact rubbish and suggested she read Delusions of Gender, and added that I thought every teacher should read it as a lot of the stuff about gender difference you hear these days was not only wrong but dangerous...

I'm going to be 'one of THOSE mothers' forever, aren't I?

OP posts:
coraltoes · 20/02/2013 12:01

Fascinating thread!

LurcioLovesFrankie · 20/02/2013 12:03

Coral - interesting. From what I've heard the city is a hypermasculine (for want of a better word) environment. Do you think there's any possibility that a woman in your firm would be likely to internalise the gender stereotypes of those around them in order to fit in? That they'd play up to some sort of "well most women are fluffy and girly, but I'm an honorary chap" sort of role? I know I've found that a tempting niche to occupy in the past in some circumstances - e.g. when first starting out rock climbing in the mid 80s when I was one of only two women in the university club: as a mature postgrad a decade later at a different university, I found it a refreshing change to be in a club which was nearer to 50/50 where one could just be an individual. With a greater awareness of feminism, I hope I'd resist adopting the "honorary chap" role now, but it can be very difficult in some circumstances.

Re stereotype threat, someone posted this very interesting link on one of the feminism discussions: www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337/stereotype-threat-why-women-quit-science-jobs

coraltoes · 20/02/2013 12:12

Lurcio, no I don't think I do adopt a honorary bloke role, but I do at times demonstrate the kind of aggression and tenacity that one wouldn't readily attribute to women in the workplace. I do think that is just my own personality (I am bloody punchy) and I've just found my "fit" with a team. Perhaps growing up, this side of me was kept more in check as it wasn't really fitting of a nice young lady starting out, but now I am well established in a career it has seen me progress faster than my "softer" female colleagues as it is a trait management (mostly male) can relate to and are happy to promote. Does that make sense?

Had I been a more gentle lady I'd probably have been overlooked for a few of my promotions.

seeker · 20/02/2013 12:19

Are people really saying that babies aren't being stereotyped from birth? No pink and blue baby grows then? No "pretty little girl" or "strapping bouncing boy?" No "ooh, he's a proper little bruiser" "she's such a little sweetie"?

silverfrog · 20/02/2013 12:29

it would appear so, seeker.

which is absolutely not my experience. I have lost count of the number of times people have commented that, for eg, ds is wearing something pink, or told that he is doing X because he is a boy (or not doing Y because he is a boy) and so on.

If it really didn't matter to these people what ds wears (which is what they say), then why feel the need to comment on which hat ds is wearing, or point out that there is a flower/bird/something else apparently 'girly' on his t shirt. he is 7 months old, and doesn't give a stuff, fgs. not the case with everyone else, it would seem.

edam · 20/02/2013 12:29

Coraltoes, did you read my post about the experiments that have been done that show people treat babies very differently when they are dressed in pink or blue? The same baby gets a completely different response if you dress him or her in blue than if you dress him or her in pink. Gender stereotyping definitely begins at birth. However much the parents think they are not giving the child messages about acceptable behaviour and character traits for their gender, the rest of the world certainly is.

rollmopses · 20/02/2013 12:34

I DON"T want my boys brought up playing with dolls, dressed in pink etc. I want my boys to be boys.
I absolutely refuse, in the name of some idiotic cider socialists' agenda, to manipulate my children to be 'like everybody else, Uber-equal and diverse'. Bugger off.
My children are fabulous individuals and very much boys. Hallelujah.
I can't stand feminine men nor can I abide severely butch women.
Tis' world of ours needs two sexes to keep on being populated with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Genders need to keep their differences.
We are not equal nor ever will be, in any sense. Some are always bigger/better/faster/smarter/ than you. Some smaller/worse/slower/dumber than you. Get used to it.
All individuals are different by bleeping definition.

Scorpette · 20/02/2013 12:34

No, SGB is talking total sense as usual Grin

I also agree with everything ICBINEG says.

Without outing myself, this is what I know acedemically/professionally: sex, gender (and sexuality as part of it) are really different from what most people believe them to be. So much goes on hormonally before the end of the first trimester that influences the whole shebang (this is why homophobes are so fuckwitted, as sexuality is determined by normal biological processes in utero), as well as a very tiny percentage of genes playing a part. True gender difference is very slight, such as some girls being more drawn to sociablr activities very young and some boys walking earlier/being a bit more physically advanced. However, these are purely to do with small amounts of brain chemicals affecting cerebral activities and have zero bearing on any sort of truth about gender.

Children ARE genderised from birth. Even when parents try to keep things as gender-neutral as possible, virtually everything a child experiences from birth reinforce gender stereotypes and codes, be it how grandparents treat them to the subtlest things on tv, say (I once saw an episode of Show Me, Show Me about washing and Poi was on her knees doing all the pretending to wash and Chris was just singing and watching. Even that trivial example gives a child a gender message). By the time kids get to school, gender codes are so entrenched that yes, girls will generally behave like X and boys generally like Y and teachers, as well as everyone else, will see these differences as the 'truth' about gender difference.

Incidentally, for posters saying that their DC seemed to not have much gender identity when toddlers but seemed to gravitate towards stereotypical things for their gender when they got to 3, this is not proof of gender stereotypes holding true, it is because this is vital stage of understanding one's identity and place within the world that makes you feel 'normal'. This is why children aged 3-6 will be very rigidly and crudely stereotypical and think the opposite sex is stupid and gross, etc.

People see the results of lifelong genderisation and call it proof of these differences being innate and seem incapable of seeing the immensely bigger picture to it all. Nothing comes about fully-formed in a vacuum. Everything a person is, however young they are, is a result of conditioning and experience from the moment they were born (in fact maybe before, as children of women who were highly stressed throughout pregnancy are often prone to elevated levels of stress and anxiety as adults, even with a very calm upbringing). And everything is also down to interpretation: identical behaviour in a boy will be seen as something else in a girl. Not only does this teach children how to genderise themselves but it means that people blind themselves to the truth of what they are witnessing. I just don't get how people can not see all this. How can an adult believe children just come out with gender identity?!

The sad thing is, every one of us who points out these scientifically proven and long-known facts won't convince the people with their heads in the gender sand, as it's easier to cling to lazy assumptions and sterotypes that require no effort to think about, affirm and encourage. It's like when you point out to religious homophobes that the part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality also condemns eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibres as equally heinous acts - they refuse to let the logic enter their brains because it challenges them to confront beliefs they hold that make them comfortable (however silly or unpleasant).

Scorpette · 20/02/2013 12:37

Rollmopses, if all individuals are different by definition, why do you insist that your boys must be boys and can't wear pink and play with dolls? Surely by refusing these as possibilities for them you are actively preventing them from being individuals as you are only offering them a limited and rigid range of how to form their identity?!

Like all kneejerk frothers, you make no sense.

MechanicalTheatre · 20/02/2013 12:38

How is shoving people into a gender box "individualising" them, rollmopses ?

seeker · 20/02/2013 12:41

"We are not equal nor ever will be, in any sense. Some are always bigger/better/faster/smarter/ than you. Some smaller/worse/slower/dumber than you. Get used to it."

Absolutely. Not sure I'm happy that boys should always be in the former category and girls in the latter, mind you............

rollmopses · 20/02/2013 12:42

And individuality in enforced in your little bubble exactly how? By forcing blue dinosaurs down little girls throat and pink tutu's, for boys. Or is your little world all gender neutral and lovingly beige?
Such utter drivel, my dear.

seeker · 20/02/2013 12:46

Rollmopses- I'm wondering if you saw my post earlier about my dd's experience at an all girls's school and the change she saw moving to a mixed 6th form? It's not just about pink and blue- it actually has an impact of how boys and girls access education. You presumably want your daughters to have equal opportunities with their brothers?

drjohnsonscat · 20/02/2013 12:46

DON"T want my boys brought up playing with dolls, dressed in pink etc. I want my boys to be boys.

Oh my Lord. I hope you never come across my boy. He's amazing and you are very narrow.

MechanicalTheatre · 20/02/2013 12:47

I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I just don't insist that boys wear blue and girls wear pink and boys do maths and girls do English.

MummyPigsFatTummy · 20/02/2013 12:49

I find rollmopses post interesting where he/she says: "Some are always bigger/better/faster/smarter/ than you. Some smaller/worse/slower/dumber than you. Get used to it."

Interesting how "bigger/faster" (typically male characteristics) are grouped with "better/smarter" whilst "smaller/slower" (typically female characteristics) with "worse/dumber". A little unconscious sexism? And even if rollmopses doesn't mean it that way, which is probably the case, it is still there in all of life, telling us and our DDs we are less than men (not just different) and always will be.

I grew up feeling somehow, as a girl I was considered inferior to boys (other than in relation to the messages I received from my all-girls school) - that was culturally driven and I intend to do what I can to prevent DD growing up with that belief too.

MummyPigsFatTummy · 20/02/2013 12:49

Oh x-post with seeker

rollmopses · 20/02/2013 12:50

Are you saying, that until the Gender Neutral idiocy came to be the slogan to the bleeding lefties, there has not been a single person who could be called an Individual? That all women have always been, as seeker so kindly points out 'smaller/worse/slower/dumber...?
Just because you are women, you are destined to be slow and dumb?
How sad. I wouldn't want to live under your rock.

stripeyjimjams · 20/02/2013 12:51

Really interesting thread, SGB. Apologies if anyone has mentioned this above, but have you come across Gender Trouble by Judith Butler? That book, as far as I know, really marked the beginning of theorists looking into gender as a social construct, regulated by social discourses rather than being a biological fact. It's a great book. Butler writes: "there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very "expressions" that are said to be its results.? I would agree that each of our own 'versions' of masculinity and feminity, or anything in between, are not inherent within us from birth, but are developed through social conditioning. And this doesn't necessarily mean indoctrination or aggressive coercion of children into certain gendered roles, but rather that propagating ideas of what 'masculine' and 'feminine' mean are so deeply ingrained in our societies that we don't even realise when we're 'performing' certain gendered roles, or think about why we do it.

I wasn't brought up with pink, shiny, 'girly' things in my home. My parents were pretty much hippies. As a child, most of my friends were boys and I wasn't into Take That or crop tops with big hearts on them from Tammy Girl. I was happy enough in primary school, but in secondary school I soon saw that I was never the girl boys fancied, and I felt alienated and ugly. When I was 16, I decided to go for the 'girly' thing hammer and tongs (fake tan, highlights) and yes, that's when boys started to notice me. But it wasn't me. I grew out of all that pretty quickly, but maybe had to try it to see that it wasn't for me. I'm now happily married (to a fake tan hating man), I love baking and shopping. I also still love trains and getting my hands dirty, as I did when I was wee.

No child should ever feel guilty as they grow up because they don't feel they conform to the gender stereotypes (however subtle) which society sets out. Equally, no parent should ever feel guilty for letting their child conform to 'girlishness' or 'boyishness.' My DSis babysits for a woman who lets her 8 year old DS wear dresses (in public). This woman gets blasted for this by her peers on a regular basis. She started to cry when my DSis told the wee boy he looked awesome when she first met him, and asked him about his outfit, because nobody had ever reacted to him in that way before, as if there was nothing strange about him. I can see the mum's perspective, but can see equally the concerns of those who worry about him getting bullied.

It's important to investigate and engage with your own understanding of what gender means, and know that it's not the same for everyone. More power to you for recommending that book to the teacher. You were not aggressive or preachy and, if she's a committed educator, she should be interested in any discourse surrounding children's socialistion.

MechanicalTheatre · 20/02/2013 12:52

rollmopses your inability to argue without reverting to highly emotive language somewhat denigrates your argument.

LurcioLovesFrankie · 20/02/2013 12:53

Coral - sounds like you and I have similar personalities, and it's definitely a career advantage in a lot of male-dominated work places, though some studies have suggested there's a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't problem: some studies have shown that while women who don't push for promotion/pay rises are (not surprisingly) ignored, those who do get dismissed as ball-breakers. Recent research is a bit more nuanced:

www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/womencareerresearchbyoreilly.html

But the fact that you and I manage OK (or in my case, did pre family) doesn't negate the general feminist point that by rewarding this personality trait you may be missing out on a lot of good people (of either sex) who aren't pushy (obviously this won't apply where push is the main criterion for doing the job well - but there's a lot of jobs where being good at the job has sod all to do with how pushy you are but promotion prospect still hinge on it). And that maintaining this level of competitiveness is damn hard once you have a family making demands on your time, energy and sleep patterns (it's ok if you're a high flyer who can afford a nanny, but that doesn't help those who can't). And I think it's fair enough to question some of the underlying assumptions of masculine workplace culture - for example, is a long hours culture really driven by the needs of the job or is it acting as a mechanism to demonstrate corporate loyalty above all other considerations? www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons - this, for instance, is (I think) a quite good evidence-based management study of why a long-hours culture is counterproductive when viewed objectively as an efficient (or inefficient) way of getting work done. (A bit off topic from the main thread, which is about gender stereotyping, but relevant insofar as SGB has just pointed out that how we raise our children has big impacts on what they go on to achieve - and a gentle bookish child of either sex may have a lot of career doors closed, not because they can't do the job, but because the workplace environment surrounding that job requires a certain personality type).

seeker · 20/02/2013 12:56

Rolmopses- do you think you could discuss things without being so rude?

Did you see my post about gender and access to education? Presumably you want your dd's to have the same opportunities as your sons?

LurcioLovesFrankie · 20/02/2013 13:02

Seeker - I had exactly the same experience as your daughter, going from single sex 0 levels to a mixed 6th form. How depressing nothing has changed for the better in 20 or 30 years!

It was also very interesting re. level of aggression. Our physics teacher was a very gentle woman who would never have got us through the syllabus if I hadn't devoted a lot of my energy to keeping the class on track and not allowing my peers to mess around. I remember thinking at the time that it was a bloody good job I found the physics easy as I simply wouldn't have had the mental energy to manage the class and study if I'd found physics hard.

rollmopses · 20/02/2013 13:03

Oh give me strength.
Who in their right mind chooses subjects to study - based on gender. Idiots, that's who.
ALL children should take physics, chemistry, math, biology, geography, history, several foreign languages, literature, music etc. etc.
It's called basic education.
I shudder in horror thinking that just because one is a girl, one should not read physics? Or because one happens to be a boy, literature is off limits.
How very odd and frightening way of thinking.

DesiderataHollow · 20/02/2013 13:06

I was walking past the parallel classroom (same age group, but 15hours nursery provision rather than childcare) to the room my son is in, (I'm based in the same school) and got chatting to the teacher about the display she was putting up.

I said that the drawings were a lot more detailed than anything DS2 (who is one of the oldest in his year group) could manage, and wasn't it strange how they all developed differently.

She then asked me to see if I could spot something about the more detailed drawings, it took me a while, but without exception, the "better" drawings were all by girls. The boys were all still either wildly scribbling or putting arms coming out of tthe tops of heads.

To me, that shows a trend that needs more investigation. Why would it be that girls develop that kind of fine-motor control and observation earlier than boys generally? Could that be nurture rather than nature?