Sex ed - shaving legs in year 5

[Candycoco]

Have posted in education but posting here for traffic.

Dd came home from school today having had sex ed at school for the past 2 days.

I've always been very open with her and have answered questions as they've come up, so no big revelations this week.

However, she told me today that the boys were taught how to shave by male teacher, and girls were taught how to shave their legs. This just doesn't sit right with me. I know 99% of women do shave their legs and it's something I've already talked to dd about as she asked me last year about it and I told her she has to wait til end of year 6 before she starts secondary to do it.

I just feel it's a bit presumptuous and suggests all girls should. Maybe I'm being bit uptight about it but I don't like the message it sends. Is this normal to teach this as park of sex ed?

Thanks

Or channelling of behaviours?...

"When most women appear to like something that I don't, though, I don't assume that they are all being bullied into it"

I don't assume that either.

So you think they are being subtly conditioned into it?...

I think everyone lives in a society and operates largely according to that society's rules. So women in Saudi Arabia don't go around in bikinis because that's not accepted in that society.

It is expected in our society that women will shave their legs. The vast majority of women follow that expectation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I'm interested in is what the expectations for women and men are and whether they're different, and if so, why. And what that means for women.

Saudi Arabia is a good example actually. In that society, women are expected to cover up, and most women follow that expectation. Men, however, are not expected to cover up. The thinking behind the expectation is that men are tempted by women, but rather than men having to resist temptation, women have to be covered and restricted. I think that's a problem, from a feminist point of view.

Rabbit and lass have already answered for me, couldn't have put it better.
On the subject of gender specific biological differences and behavior I believe the animal world provides more than ample proof that many differences and behaviors, and examples of conforming to society are hard wired not due to media or cultural history etc. Taking pets aside so human influence can be ignored, any animal that lives in a group ( wolves, horses, deer etc) will display certain behaviors and actions, often specific to gender or at least ones that are mostly associated with one gender. And yet there is no way they are conforming to what their society is expecting of their gender because they don't think that deeply. The only conforming is non gender specific and usually learnt by being part of that society. And for all humans are far more complex in our herd behavior than say a pack of wolves, on a purely biological level we aren't

I see what you're saying Lurked, but say that the government it's 'natural' for women to be at home with children (given that in most species the female does most of the childrearing) and thus women should be kept out of the workforce. Would you agree with that?

the government claims

cailindana - all gender stereotypes are an unhelpful means of controlling people. Not everybody conforms to stereotype. A stereotype is just a crass and over simplified generalisation used by unintelligent people, or people intent on controlling others. Lots of women like fashion magazines. That does not mean all women must like fashion magazines or that if they don't, they aren't proper women. We are all individuals and should be treated as such. We should not, ideally, look down on one role over another, or force each other into roles that do not suit us, whether to conform to expectations or to fight against them.

I agree entirely with that rabbit. But you stated that you believe some differences between women and men are biological. So where does the biological end and the culture/stereotype begin?

And if girls in primary school are being taught how to shave isn't that reinforcing a stereotype, telling girls that this is what's expected of them? Where do we draw the line? Are we ok with girls being taught how pluck their eyebrows at school? Or being taught how to walk in heels?

It's worth remembering that if you had been born 100 years earlier you would not have been able to vote, own property, have a professional job, or have the right protection from rape by your husband. All because it was considered 'natural' and 'normal' for women to be kept subservient to men.

No of course not, same as political debate and digs aside, in times of austerity nobody would back a UK government who claimed we should leave our weakest members to die to make it easier for the rest, which is how it works in animal societies. Because we are far more complex than that. But on a basic level, I do think some of a woman's desire to raise her young is hardwired. I bet if you look at the figures for women who willingly give up their newborns/ very young children for adoption it's far less than the number of men who willingly walk away. ( I'm talking developed countries where it's a personal choice not where it's a physical survival choice). Which to a degree I would say isn't just down to the fact our society judges a woman who walks away from her young more harshly than a man, I think it's also partly a hardwired response. Because some women do ignore how society will judge them, and choose to give up the baby right up to birth, when the hard wired part then takes over and they change their mind. Or on a more personal note I could become a surrogate for a close friend or relative, and agree all along it wasn't my biological baby and I'd hand it over at birth. But I know myself once I gave birth I'd ignore everything my society has a right to expect, and refuse to hand over the baby. And that can only be because for me I know the basic biological desire to nurture my young would overpower my own personal morals and decency and everything society expects of me.
As an aside and more back on topic, I think for any group where there is inequality, making an issue out of something that really isn't one, like leg shaving, distracts from areas where there really is a problem, at least because it makes it sound as though sexism is a minor issue, and at worst it makes it sound like anyone claiming sexism is a raving loon. Same for racism or any other form of discrimination in my view. Bring to people's attention actual examples of conforming against an individuals will and inequality and it does the cause far more good.

As I've already said, I don't know exactly where biology ends and culture/stereotype begins - nobody does. And no, I don't think talking about shaving in primary school teaches girls that they should stay at home with their children and not go out to work. I equate it to talking to boys about shaving. It is something that in our culture, men and women do to different parts of their bodies. I therefore don't see it as an issue to get wound up about, as it doesn't in my view affect anything of importance.

Many would agree with you Lurked. I feel that it's possible discuss "small" issues like shaving as well as "big" issues like rape and sexual assault. I don't really care if people think I'm a raving loon.

I didn't say teaching girls how to shave teaches them to stay at home with children, I said it teaches them to conform with a certain way of looking - ie smooth-legged.

You don't think it's important, I do. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree with Lurked.

I think society will always expect a certain amount of conformity. If that conformity is limited to most women shaving their legs and most men shaving their faces, I have absolutely no problem with that, as it doesn't really limit women's or men's lives.

I think respecting the equal importance of different roles is a matter of vital importance. I think there is undue pressure on society to conform to the opinion that mugs do some types of work - mainly the sort of work that women are more likely to choose to do and often do without payment - and superior people do other types of work - mainly the sort of work that is most highly paid, regardless of actual utility. It is not, despite what many in society seem to think, a sign of weakness for someone to favour one role over another. It can put you in a position of weakness, however, because of the way society has structured itself, not because it is an inferior role.

Every single culture and subculture in human history has 'rules' and 'guidelines' about how members of that culture should or shouldn't appear. It's how we recognize each other and part of the way we communicate. Wanting to conform with cultural and societal norms is, in the most basic meaning of the word, normal.

cailin that's just my point, I don't think shaving in itself is a small issue, in my view it's a none issue. And my 'raving loons' comment wasn't a snide attempt at a personal insult, just a simple way of putting how I feel society as a whole views making a song and dance about none issues. Much as I believe we disagree with each other, I wouldn't want to spoil what is a reasoned debate by resorting to name calling.

Rabbit your last post epitomises a lot of what many feminists feel. To me it reads like a strongly feminist stance. Do you identify as a feminist?

I don't disagree Ninja. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine those societal norms and see whether they're harmful or not.

Again Lurked, you feel it's a non-issue, I don't. Nothing wrong with that.

To refer to your previous post Rabbit, I don't think society's expectations of conformity are limited to facial/body hair.

"But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine those societal norms and see whether they're harmful or not."
And is shaving harmful? Because I don't see any evidence that it is. If not, then why is this thread creeping towards 450 posts?