AIBU - sexist science homework

[Litchick]

Lst night's science homework was to write a short passage about a famous scientist, what they discovered and its applications today.

Fine except that each question said 'he'.

Eg what was his name? What did he discover?

DD and I chose Marie Curie and changed everything to she.

AIBU to make the point on the prep sheet or just touchy?
Does it matter? It felt to me like it does. Grrrr

When my DD was in yr1 they were all asked what they wanted to be when they grew up. She gave the same answer she'd been giving since she was 3 'A builder'. By which she didn't really mean a brickie but more a builder/designer of things.

Teacher said, "Oh no, girls can't be builders." and so DD had to think of something else on the spur of the moment. She very crossly reported that she'd said 'ballet dancer' because she couldn't think of anything else (feminine) but that she didn't really want to be one (frankly brickie is more likely and I'd be happier with that too!)

At least she knew that it was the teacher being stupid ('old fashioned' we politely called it). Fortunately she has me as a role model of science/maths type.

Incidents like this make one sensitized to stereotyping.

I think it was perfectly reasonable of UQD to raise the grammatical point, even though I disagree with him, particularly as that would probably have been the argument of the teacher had he or she been hauled up before the panel (and he said himself, he would have worded the homework sheet differently).

I missed most of the offending humour, but the little winky things can be useful as a substitute for facial expression or tone of voice, UQD, unless your joke is either written in such a way that it's impossible to take offence, or so fabulously witty that any misunderstanding is instantly forgiven.

Poor UQD. He winks so much that I think his [] keys must have got worn out for one post.

Do we ever take the blokes who venture on here seriously anyway?

Oh, is he usually a bit of a winker then?

Sorry, that one sort of fell into my lap.

Ew.

At least you dont make freudian slips typos

WEll little do you know but I am a famous mouth frother

Athene, ir is not trivial, but neither does the incident require anyone to be hauled in front of a panel. All that needs to be done is for the mistake to be politely pointed out. I know its the slogan of feminism that 'it's time to get angry again', but I don't think this is one of those times.

Its a technically sexist mistake. No one was being sexist with malign intent. It's a mole hill.

And I think theres more than 20% of kids who don't fit into 'gender stereotypes' given girls are going better than boys across the academic spectrum.

Just looked at that linki too " Does recent research on brain development help us understand our girls ? or does it stereotype them? As fascinating as these findings are, the information is controversial on both a scientific and ideological basis. While many experts see value in research that shows some differences in male and female brains,they do not believe brain development is a stronger influence on a girl than the way she?s raised, the society she lives in, or the experiences she has in life"

Susan Pinker would heartily agree - as would any reputable evolutioanry psychologist.

Monkeytrews - I was the one 'hauling the teacher in front of the panel', but only in the sense that UQD was obligingly posting what might have been the teacher's point of view (or might not). I agree that there wouldn't have been any malign intent on the teacher's part, and have said before that the OP was right just to emend the sheet and leave it at that.

The debate doesn't have much to do with the teacher; an interesting, and, yes, important question was raised. It would be lovely if we could discuss this without reference to the 'loony left' (walked into that trap myself), or tired cliches about angry feminists and stroppy women. It's getting a bit silly now - I think everyone arguing in support of the teacher's use of language has actually agreed that they wouldn't have said that themselves, but there is some disagreement about the importance to be attached to it. That seems like a reasonable and quite interesting outcome.

I still am not clear if the "offending" worksheet was written by the teacher him/herself (do you see what I did there?) or photocopied/downloaded from an existing resource.

And I think if we are going to agree not to make "stroppy feminist"/ Millie Tant comments (which is reasonable) then we should also agree not to do passive-agressive "ooh, yes, let's all submit to the men coming on here to tell us ickle laydees to Know Our Place, eh?" type remarks, which are equally irritating.

Deal?

Me? I can't make that deal because I've only veered off the topic long enough to make a stupid pun, which, sorry, just had to be done. If I caused offence, I apologize, but the word was just sitting there in front of an open goal. Yes, I hear you say, just like Millie Tant... Though I was careful to wink.

Everyone else can respond as individuals, if they feel like it.

As far as the worksheet is concerned - I don't think it matters who wrote it, the ensuing debate is still valid.

What I really don't understand is why everybody doesn't just say "Oh yes, it is a bit silly to use language that implies that all scientists are male when obviously they aren't - next time we'll word it differently." why is it even a cause for debate? We were talking about this in the 70's! 30 years later people are still querying it. Bizarre.

I don't disagree Pyro. I haven't read every post - just skim reading - as you do.

I know this is MN and we like shooting the breeze but there is such a thing as flogging a dead horse. The fact that the teach did this might actually point to the fact that is ^isn't& an issue in this day and age. That doesn't mean that subtle reminders shouldn't be made, as the OP did, lest the creeping sickness infect us again.

Even the fact that the debate itse'f has veered off into the inane might be evidence supporting it as a non-argument.

I think this knee-jerk stress response is a major reason why young women don't want to call themselves feminist. They care about the issues, but they also want to discuss them as reasonable people. I for one don't want to be angry. It's the opposite of reasonable. Maybe it's time for more focus, less anger.

As unpleasant as it might be, MilliTant is a canny parody rather than a stereotype.

hadn't read your post Seeker, soz

Get a life

Sorry MT if I'm being dense but what is a non-issue now? The language or the statistics still underlying the stereotype?

I'm not big on anger but I've quite a bit of sorrow when I scan the FRS list and see the paucity of female names in the top echelons of UK science.

What stats still underly what stereotype? All the data I have seen in the last five years shows there is no stereotype. What we have today, rather than what existsed 50 years ago, is rather an archytpe. But people still think that describing any consistant and average differece between sexes is both malign, sexist and prescriptive rather than benign, promoting individuality and descritive.

Why not feel sorrow for the paucity of male presence at the school gates?

The main goal in all of life is to have healthy offspring that reach maturity and have healthy offspring themselves. Men and women have slightly different strategies in getting that, but at the top of the pyramid, their goals are the same.

Not an issue? Are you serious? My three year old daughter won't believe me when I tell her that some doctors are women and some nurses are men. The stereotypes are absolutely still there, and they are perpetuated by precisely the sort of language that is highlighted in the OP.

I didn't say it was a non issie. I said it needs seeing in context and dealing with reasonably without need to man the fecking barricades.

FFS she's three. Growing up a bit and seeing more of the world will sort her out. Where on earth do you think your three year old has been?

Monkeytrousers, actually you said "The fact that the teach did this might actually point to the fact that is ^isn't& an issue in this day and age"

And yes - exactly - she's 3. She has already picked up what you would expect to be a completely outdated gender stereotype. But clearly it still exists.

"Not an issue? Are you serious? My three year old daughter won't believe me when I tell her that some doctors are women and some nurses are men. The stereotypes are absolutely still there, and they are perpetuated by precisely the sort of language that is highlighted in the OP. "

Who is influencing her views?