AIBU or is all this gender neutrality stuff a bit much !?

[rOsie80]

I overheard the manager at my child's nursery saying yesterday how she had to inform the parents that the plan was to dress the girls as angles and the boys as something else (can't recall what!) but this was not to encourage gender stereotypes and little boys could be angels too (and vice versa) if they wanted too! Is it me or is all this gender neutrality stuff going a bit nuts !?

Angels were always girls and boys when I was a kid in the nativity.

You just had to be blonde

See, I still remember the injustice of all the blond/e children being chosen as angels and Mary, while the dark haired ones were shepherds, inn keepers etc.

Even at a young age, I was aware that the part of the world where the nativity was set meant that Mary should have looked more like me! But the idea that blonde = virginal, angelic etc is pervasive. I wonder how many black girls are chosen as Mary for their school's production?

Obviously I don't feel like my life prospects have been harmed by it, but there is definitely a feeling that blonde is better and those many instances where it has been subtly pushed on me have all compounded that message, in the same way that gender segregation does.

It is the responsibility of nurseries and schools to work against the negative messages that we are all given by society and if that means encouraging the boys to don a pair or wings or a sheep costume instead of a beard and a tea towel on the head, that's great. If it means having a dark haired, dark skinned Mary that's as it should be.

Giving all children the message that they can be anything they choose can only be a positive thing. And no, I don't mean that a boy can actually have a baby, but tbh if one wants to play Mary in the nativity then its no more ludicrous than playing a sheep or indeed a pineapple (my DD was a bowl of fruit in her nativity!!)

I agree with PPs. This is what is concerning about the whole gender-sex debacle - the nursery don't even recognise when they are doing exactly what they say they are trying not to do. No need to divide the roles by sex at all and if "boys can be angels too", then why aren't they? Madness

You just had to be blonde

Did you grow up in 1930s Germany?! Was there also a penchant for blue eyes? I have honestly never heard of this (not that I am doubting it's true, but how awful!)

DD is Mary this year. The teacher told me they needed someone blond and cute (and well behaved).....

There’s a difference between telling girls and boys that they don’t need to buy into stereotypes, and telling them that biology doesn’t matter. There are biological differences between girls and boys, but that shouldn’t affect what a child can and can’t like. The way to address stereotyping is not to pretend girls and boys don’t exist (using “they” for example) but rather not to discriminate about what either sex can do.

Did you grow up in 1930s Germany?!

When I was a small child (late 80s/early 90s) it was accepted as fact that only a blonde child could play an angel or Mary. As a little brunette I was very upset by this, but accepted that of course it made sense because only blonde girls could really be pretty. I now look back in amazement - this was, incidentally, a school in a reasonably diverse area so you'd really have thought they'd have clocked why 'blonde=good' isn't an ideal message... Obviously there's also some historical accuracy problems to insisting on a blonde Mary!

in my daughters ativity - only girls are angels My daughter is a farm animal though. A very cute lamb!

When I was a small child (late 80s/early 90s) it was accepted as fact that only a blonde child could play an angel or Mary.
Yes - this rings a bell. I was in infant school in the 70s and I'm sure it was always a blonde who was picked for Mary.

Our Mary's (and the ones now my DCs are in school) were generally brunette. We did have a Mary last year who was black too (large % white children btw)

This involves not addressing anyone as girls or boys, he or she, instead when referring to someone, teachers are to use 'they' just incase a child doesn't identify as a boy or girl.

This is getting ridiculous especially at nursery and primary level. Is it now a crime for kids to identify as a boy or a girl? Are we to pretend that males and females no longer exist for fear of upsetting a tiny minority. Why should my DD be upset or hide the fact that she is a girl? Wouldn’t it be better to celebrate that it’s ok to be whatever you want and that it is possible to be different but equal at the same time.

Ah, the (weekly, daily?) gender thread. At least this thread has good angle puns! :D

Re. blonde Marys, a friend of mine (now in her 60s) still remembers being told (admittedly in apartheid South Africa) that she couldn't be Mary because she was too Jewish-looking!

But I'm glad that my DS's school had boys and girls as wise monarchs from the east (and three different sets of Mary and Joseph, for each act of the play :-D)

This involves not addressing anyone as girls or boys, he or she, instead when referring to someone, teachers are to use 'they' just incase a child doesn't identify as a boy or girl.

Now this is indeed stupid and too far.

I don't actually understnd the problem in the OP?

MyRelationshipIsWierd You are my new favourite person. Thank you for explaining the issues so well. I worry about the drip drip effect of sexism on my DDs and take active steps to counter it, but I wish I didn't have to.