Sexism

[carefreeeee]

Heard someone on Radio 4 this morning saying 'we arranged this for men because men don't communicate like women do'

Overheard a teacher talking to a group of teenagers out on the hills last weekend: 'Now I'm expecting you girls to take extra care because the boys will just rush off without checking so you girls need to make sure they don't'

I mentioned it to a colleague at work and she thought teenage girls would like to be told they are in charge - but that wasn't my point - why couldn't the teacher have used their names if he wanted to put them in charge?

AIBU to think this sexist talk of 'men/boys do this, girls do that' should not still be going on?

I accept that there are differences between men and women and if someone said that in general men can lift heavier weights or are more likely to become train drivers I wouldn't have a problem with it, but sweeping statements that reinforce stereotypes without any justification are really annoying!

Yeah well, it's 'cos it's the girlies job in life to run around looking after the boys innit? That's what we are for, dancing attendance on the male of the species.

Oh, and pass the sick bucket....

YANBU, of course. It serves neither the girls or the boys well.

if someone said that in general men...are more likely to become train drivers I wouldn't have a problem with it, but sweeping statements that reinforce stereotypes without any justification are really annoying
My irony meter is going off.

Perhaps an unfortunate example - for some occupations which require physical strength, the statistical probability may be that there will be more men than women capable, but I don't believe train driving should fall into that category any more.

The only train driver I know is female

Men are more likely to become train drivers.

Partly, this is because there is a legacy of gendered job roles in our society, even after years of anti-discrimination laws. I don't see how saying this is at all controversial.

I accept that men are train drivers as of now. I'm not sure that males are more likely to become train drivers in the future. That seems like a sweeping statement based on stereotypes with no justification

First sentence: more men

Trains will be driverless in the future I think.

I'm not sure that males are more likely to become train drivers in the future. That seems like a sweeping statement based on stereotypes with no justification smile.

You think we've got rid of workplace sexism? Wow.

You think we've got rid of workplace sexism?
I didn't say that at all - you're speaking in the present.

I'm hoping that young children of both sexes are equally encouraged to become train drivers or nurses or whatever they want, with no reference to gender stereotypes. Thus, I hope, that females are now equally likely to become train drivers as their male school mates.

I accept that this hope may be somewhat in vain. However, I don't think that widely accepting statements that men are more likely to become train drivers helps the issue at all. Hence commenting on sweeping generalisations.

Anyway, it was slightly tongue-in-cheek to start with. I'm not invested enough in my comment to argue heavily

'we arranged this for men because men don't communicate like women do'

This is true and it's likely one of the causes of higher suicides rates and mental health issues in men. Do you have a problem with a male only space? This is about the only one I can think of.

why couldn't the teacher have used their names if he wanted to put them in charge?

Do you use a list of pronouns every time you address a group? It isn't like they listed off the boys names and then just said "girls" about the girls. Also, the teacher knew the children so was likely to know this group of boys and how likely they were to "check".

My objection to the hill walk scenario is that the girls are being made to take responsibility for the boys.

In which case the boys aren't learning to take responsibility for themselves - so what happens if a group of boys goes walking without any girls?

Being a girl or a boy is not a good reason for not taking responsibility for yourself.

I have less issue with the male communication event if the organisers have through their stats identified a specific need to target a service a particular group.

He shouldn't have been making 'the girls' responsible for 'the boys'. It's unlikely that all of the boys were incapable of behaving responsibly, or that all of the girls would have more nous. Part of the point of taking kids out into the hills is usually to foster a combination of personal responsibility and teamwork, making lazy stereotypical assumptions did neither well. It was good for neither the boys nor the girls.

The first one isn't necessarily sexist, men and women in general do have different patterns of verbal and nonverbal communication, so there are cases where an organisation might communicate in a particular way in order to reach out to men.

The teacher in the hills was sexist - their remark perpetuated the idea that women rather than men are responsible for performing caring labour.