to object to this reading book

[Itscurtainsforyou]

My 5 year old brought home a reading book about "man on the moon". It talked about the 12 MEN (not people, men) who have walked on the moon. I could let that one go as it was talking about past events and they were all men.

However at the end of the book it says something along the lines of "maybe men will walk on the moon again" - IABU to think that they should have used non-gender words (such as "people") or worded it differently? I felt the need to explain to my 5 year old that in the 1960-70s most astronauts were men and of course these days women were equally likely to walk on the moon/go into space.

Maybe I'm just easily wound up but this just seems like subtle sexism and there should be no place for it in schools.

Yanbu, it's a missed opportunity. Yes the factual parts are correct but it's a shame the book scheme authors couldn't come up with a way of being more inclusive in the conclusion.

It may seem minor, but it's all part of a bigger picture.

Op I agree with you. I can't see why they could not use people or humans. I am surprised people don't have a problem with the ending. I don't see anything wrong with the beginning because it's stating facts but surely the ending should be different.

As no women have walked on the moon I can't see what the problem is.

The ending could have been, "perhaps men will walk on the moon again or maybe it will be a woman next time." It isn't sexist.

For the lazy feminists, 'mankind''s etymology makes for interesting reading (or perhaps 'blah, blah, blah, I can't hear you suits better), 'man' meant thinking and was gender neutral. 'mannekinde' meant thinking species. 'wer' was masculine and 'wif' feminine. We had words like vermann wind wifnamm. We can see how wifmann became 'wife' and 'woman'. As for 'wer', it's nearly disappeared from English but the obvious example of 'werewolf' (man-wolf).

At the OP, was Man or Men capitalised? It should be when refering to humans but not when referring to a specific male.

Completely agree with Lougle

The book should have said 'maybe man will walk on the moon again' or 'maybe men and women will walk on the moon again' but other than that I don't have an issue with the reference to the men that already have.

I am obviously a very bad female. Dd had this book a month ago and equality never crossed my mind

If I'm reading out loud to ds, I quite often substitute 'people' for 'men'
Or if it says mankind I say 'what they mean is people'
Call me an uptight feminist with nothing better to worry about if you wish, I can take it

We are no longer sending people to the moon so it's irrelevant that no women went, times were different then and the book is historically accurate. Now women do go into space and several went on the space shuttle the first british astronaut was female, christa mcauliffe, Sally ride, a quick google list over 50 female astronauts.

Mardlebum

You're an uptight feminist with nothing better to worry about

Capitalised 'm' means from mankind whereas the lowercase would mean 'male'. As I wrote, mankind comes from 'thinking species' and nothing whatsoever to do with sex.

I find it really apt when overzealous feminists disagree with the use of 'Man' or 'mankind' as a description which includes them.

I could let that one go as it was talking about past events and they were all men.

How gracious of you; it is historical fact.

Wow! I want your life. Is this the worst thing you can find to worry about??!!

For the lazy feminists, 'mankind''s etymology makes for interesting reading

As a feminist I've long been aware of the gender-neutral origin of "man" but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference in practical terms today does it?

Here's an experiment : take a class of 6 year olds and read them a narrative being careful to only use the word "man" in its generic sense. "Man went to the moon" "Man invented fire" "Man worked in the field" "Man built huts" etc...

Then ask them if they are imagining men or women. My money is on men.

"How gracious of you; it is historical fact."

It's also historical fact that women were actually barred in a myriad of ways from doing those things.

To teach children that women did nothing in the past without teaching them why is wrong because it leaves the girl with the impression that women are still unable to do those things. And there are many people who are happy to confirm that belief for her.

"If you can't see it you can't be it" Geena Davis
"The reason there are no women in Computing is because there are no women in Computing" Mark Z

Oh fgs you really are overdoing this.

Also think yabu. It's factually correct, phonetically simpler for a 5 year old, really not worth getting wound up about and as someone else said probably printed years ago. Use it as a talking point. No harm done. Drives me mad these days that women make other women look like idiots by having to jump on the tiniest thing.

theydon'tknow...

"Man went to the moon" - maybe they'd know that women haven't been to the moon.

Tell 6 year olds about a nurse and ask if they were imagining a man or a woman.

Tell them a story about housework, looking after babies, being a nurse etc using 'Man' (generically) and ask them if they were thinking about a man or a woman.

I don't think your experiment would prove the point you think it would. The activities you chose are traditionally male jobs hence the stereotyping the children would use. An entirely different issue to 'mankind' and 'Man' vs 'humans' and 'person'.

ps.

"To teach children that women did nothing in the past without teaching them why is wrong"

The child is 5! Are you allowed to read Asterix without explaining the issues that stereotypes cause or how colonialism was a terrible thing?

It's about on par with the book dd brought home recently where the child wishes the goldfish is their mum because all the mum does is moan, with examples like don't throw that rock and brush your teeth. You know, parenting? Which is not moaning and dad is equally decodable as mum. Charming!

There's a difference between man and men.

If the pictures show men, then we are talking about people who are male. I would complain about this, and maybe provide an alternative book, with a more updated narrative, and not just updated where women's space travel is concerned. Revisiting the moon isn't high on the agenda of any space agencies, afaik. Mars is where it's at.

OP, you could use the book as a historical document, and teach your DD how people looked at things not so long ago, emphasising the heroic women who fight and still fight to make sure girls are not prevented from doing any job they want to.

Theydontknow -- excellent post there. Consciousness raising is always in order, or we do indeed forget where we came from.

'They're dressed up!' And the teachers didn't even use the words 'man' or 'men'.

"The activities you chose are traditionally male jobs"

Actually two of them aren't. And we can't know who invented fire. That's kind of the point.

Your remark about nurses also demonstrates the point. I don't think I've ever heard man being used in the way you describe to talk about nurses.

Likewise have you ever heard of "man breastfeeds child"? No, because when we mean something specific to women we say women and it conjures up the image of a woman.

If the term "man" were as gender neutral as you think we would have no problem saying "breastfeeding man" but we don't say it because we know it would create a confusing image.

"The child is 5! Are you allowed to read...."

Of course I'm not advocating teaching 5 year olds about the crap stuff done to women in the past. That needs to come later.

I'm advocating a bit of balance in history so girls know that women did stuff that was worthy and a more gender neutral view of the future that is more inclusive.

I know it sounds heinously PC and BBC-like but it's the only decent response to the situation we have with the way history has ignored women.

Mathanxiety. That video - wow!

There haven't been any women on the moon so it's factual. There are worse books.

At age 5 I think it is especially important to counteract the Disney Princess role models that are all so many girls have to nourish their spirits. It is really important to hear of women who are writers and athletes and doctors and in general useful members of society, and also to value the contribution of older women who are not 'princessy' in their appearance when so many of the Disney baddies are older women.

If you try to find material on women who have led inspiring lives, you will find it in pitifully short supply.

We and you are early sight words Mrs, so they would be expected to recognise those by sight.

I must say there's some really interesting points raised about use of language here. May try some of this with my class.