an independent school shouldn't be gender stereotyping

[m0therofdragons]

Okay, so I get that they argue the adverts are part of a whole campaign but seriously, who is likely to see every advert. Surely, if you need to see the whole collection of ads to realise the school isn't sexist, it's a pretty crap campaign?

m.somersetlive.co.uk/millfield-school-in-street-rubbishes-claim-that-adverts-are-8216-disgraceful-8217-gender-stereotyping/story-30138823-detail/story.html

Well I have a boy who plays the harp so you are also making assumptions that harp playing is girlie. It surprises lots of people that this was his choice of instrument as he is quite wild, but saw one at 6 and has loved it ever since. His poster who probably read mathematician, harpist, pyromaniac, cook.

Here's the full list...
Boys
Number cruncher, diplomat, explorer
Linguist, sculptor, footballer

Physicist, pianist, hurdler
Chemist, cook, rugby player
Researcher, artist, rugby

Girls
Storyteller, mini chef, runner
Scientist, actress, horse rider
Writer, artist, hockey player
Politician, debater, modern pentathlete
Mathematician, flautist, tennis player
Doctor, guitarist, hockey player
Biologist, harpist, netball player

I think the girl probably got "mini chef" to avoid having chef twice and she was younger than the boy chef.

I'm really struggling to see the problem here.

Yeah, I saw all the options, thanks.

I don't buy the 'mini chef because she is younger than the boy who said cook' angle.

As I said before, it would put me off as a prospective parent, from both sides of the argument. I no more want my ds being taught (whether implicitly or explicitly) that he should aspire to bigger/better things than girls than I do my dd being taught that boys can/do/should do so.

Sloppy.

Equally you could make the argument that 'cook' is something short of 'chef', mini or otherwise?

Fucking hell, if you are rich enough to afford Millfield I wouldn't give a stuff about the ads. Its a fabulous school.

Have you ever been there? I think you'd actually have to be slightly bonkers to think that girls get a limited range of opportunities at Millfield. Seriously.

It could be interpreted in a number of ways.

The boy who said 'cook' is 11, so old enough to have a wide, varied vocabulary, and know his own mind. The girl who said 'mini chef' is 5, so probably had some input into listing things, or help finding the right words (it certainly seems as though the 5 year old boy did, anyway). So an adult thought it was fine for a 5 year old to have 'mini chef' as a profession she could aspire to. Not chef, but mini chef. For when she grows up (presumably, since the boy gets to list diplomat - hardly a playground/role playing game/hobby aspiration!).

It's bollocks, and not a good advert for the school. It certainly isn't saying (to me) what the school want it to be saying.

I haven't said anything about the range of opportunities.

My comments have centred on what the children (with Millfield staff as their mentors and guides) have apparently aspired to. Which says nothing about what options they may or may not have. But speaks volumes about what they feel is expected of them, or what they perceive their place to be in the world (or, perhaps, if as a pp suggested, the aspirations were amended so as not to be too similar to other responses, what the staff around them see as the children's places in the world)

I think this is a lot of speculation, Panda.
What

What are they supposed to say?

Cambridge undergraduate
Olympic medallist
Booker prize winning author

Oops - posted too soon.

What do you make of them not prompting the 11 year old boy to upgrade his description from 'cook' to 'chef'?

Award winning composer
Ground breaking research scientist
Nervous breakdown at age 18

My point is that the older children don't appear to have had their descriptions 'upgraded', but the youngest two (well, the boy, at least) do. And in their cases, the boy gets a better deal out of the upgrade.

Maybe the 11 year old doesn't want to be a chef. Maybe he wants to be a cook (and I would expect him to know the difference).

In the case of the 5 year old, either the staff did a crap job of explaining what was needed/wanted (why would any child say they want to be a mini anything when they grow up?) or, as a pp suggested, the younger child got the cutesy, younger role.

Makes not a jot of difference to me, as my dc won't be going to millfield anyway (location, not finances), but this kind of overlooked crap is important, and on my radar as I am in the process of looking for a secondary place for dd2.

Blimey Panda in the best possible way you sound like hard work! Good luck finding a school for dd2.

I'm hard work because I expect schools to allow (and encourage) boys and girls to have a similar level of aspiration?

Yup.

It's definitely me that's the problem.

(Am having no trouble finding a school for dd2; there are plenty of good schools out there. It's just a case of not being blinded by glossy prospectuses, or taken in by lazy marketing)

My point is that the older children don't appear to have had their descriptions 'upgraded', but the youngest two (well, the boy, at least) do. And in their cases, the boy gets a better deal out of the upgrade.

Wild speculation. My guess is that they canvassed the kids about their interests and were left with the task of massaging them into an interesting media campaign, and sought to make them diverse and non-repetitive.

I also suspect that you'd be terribly unhappy if there were a boy who said 'chef' and a girl who said 'cook' but we have the 'mini' distraction so we'll never know.

I wouldn't be unhappy about that at all.

Of course it's speculation, I don't know the children involved (so don't know whether that particular 5 year old boy would come up with those interests and aspirations; he'd be unusual if he did though. My nearly 5 year old, in a similar high achieving independent school, wouldn't come up with such adult-oriented words or phrases).

My only problem with the campaign is the two 5 year olds. I haven't mentioned anything about the other children (I happen to think they are fairly well balanced) It wasn't me who tried to make an issue over the boy who said 'cook' rather than 'chef'.

I don't happen to think that millfield did a very good job of representing their reception class, if those two are the best examples they could come up with. It doesn't show either of them in a great light (they boy seems to have been over-coached, the girl not coached at all).

But as I said, it matters not for my children, as it's not a school that would be in the radar for them anyway.

My daughter plays netball against Millfield and they are bloody scary! Nothing whatsoever wishy-washy about those girls, they are amazing!

Isn't it part of the aim to show that Millfield is more than a school for less academic sporty kids? That it has a reputation for.

Poor lass is now having her interests dissected as evidence of her gender stereotypicality (or otherwise) on the internet. Seems a bit unfair - she's allowed to enjoy, and aspire to be, whatever she chooses.