This is wrong isn't it? Help me articulate why.

[MoominMammasHandbag]

In my youngest child's school, they spend Friday afternoons on a creative or sporting activity of their choice. The choices this term are football, sewing, Lego modelling, plasticine, film criticing or.......pampering. They are apparently going to do stuff like hair and nail and maybe invite the mums in and do nails for charity.

I have had a big rant to my teenage daughters about how ridiculous and devaluing it is for little girls (and it is all girls who have chosen it) to be doing stuff like this at school. One daughter agrees with me, the other has gone all post feminist and reckons it's nice for there to be a choice that the little girls will love and I shouldn't be dismissing it because it is a "girly" activity.

I am ready to fire off a letter to the Head. DD and DH reckon I will be the laughing stock of the staff room. What do you al think?

So the only sporting activity was a predominantly male sport

And there are several shades of wrong about pampering. Dear god!

OK it teaches girls that they are valued for their looks. It also teaches them that being active and exercising and being a girl don't co-exist. Presumably they won't be doing the boys nails and hair? Thought not. Gender stereotyping.

That just off the top of my head.

Quite a few of the girls do chose football, and in past terms they have had physical stuff like dance or Zumba that appeals more to the girls than the boys.

I have suggested to DS that he choose it simply to set the cat amongst the pigeons. He will not be disuaded from Lego though.

Oh that's good to hear Moomin. Is this primary school age?

I mean about girls choosing football is good. You DS choosing Lego is also understandable. That would be my choice!

Yes KS2.

Uugh - why why why? Pampering?! Good grief. If is was learning about healthy lifestyles to enable children of either gender to make good choices about looking after their bodies and minds then yes I could see a valid reason for this to be included in a school day but pampering - seriously? Even the word 'pampering' sounds superficial; what are children learning from this? It's so passive. I can't see the value in this at all and would be very angry if my odds school thought that this was a useful way for her to spend her time. I don't think there is anything positive for small girls to learn from a pampering session. If I were you I would be writing to the school too.

Ahh right. For some reason I thought it was teenagers. Should have known with Lego though!

So at primary age they are being taught they need to worry about hair and nails. These messages aren't being sent to boys. I think that is the clear message it is sending that girls need to be concerned with personal grooming from such an early age.

And people say women choose to wear make-up and shave their legs etc. No societal influence At. all.

I do feel uneasy at the way some activities coded as feminine are undervalued compared to supposedly masculine hobbies, but I do think you have a point here. Craft activities or cooking would be far more valuable.

My 4 yo would love that!

Yes, if they were teens it would be a smidge more acceptable maybe, but these are little girls

I agree it's wrong, it's not actually teaching them anything valuable apart from if you put lippy on you're more attractive/worthwhile. It's a passive activity aimed primarily at the girls, whereas all the other activities could be seen as aimed at both (although football I suppose is going to be predominantly seen as something only the boys do)

I also wouldn't consider it creative in the same way sewing, Lego modelling or plasticine modelling are.

Yes DD1 said she would've loved it. Over my dead body.

If it was teens and aimed at hair & beauty that can be taken into a hairdressing qualification for example it would be more acceptable - and many men become hairdressers too (although maybe that will be the response you get from the school?)

Yep I have no problem with sewing at all, for example. Predominantly aimed at the girls I would imagine but useful even if I hate it.

What would be cool would be to get the boys to do traditionally girls activities and vice versa. Might be enlightening.

My ds2 loves arranging my hair and so does my dd. And I love it when they do. And vice versa (although not so true of ds2) Both my sons love foot massages though. I think grooming (not a good word, but you know what I mean) comes naturally to most animals (I'm thinking of my cats who spend hours washing each other) including humans.

The word pampering is a trite, fluffy word, but I think what they are intending is a a kind of creative nurturing activity, surely? Artistic but being attentive to each other. And it is something we are bit wary of nowadays but in most societies they spend hours doing the same. It doesn't have to be devalued as pointless or just to please men.

I think the boys should be allowed to join in this activity though. It just needs to be worded differently. Stage makeup? Dressing up? Hair dressing? Physiotherapy? Sports Massage?

Exactly, my objection isn't that it is a tradionally female activity. More that it is a bloody rubbish, non creative and non educational activity. I'm trying to think of a comparable worhtless activity, that would appeal to boys, that they wouldn't consider in a million years.

Swan, that is an interesting take on it.

YANBU, I think DD1(15) and not very girly would see where you are coming from. I'm not sure my mor girly 12y would. Even though she'd quite possibly choose to play football.

I have a uphill struggle with feminism and DD2, because she was quite comfortable playing with toy cars and doing ballet, football, netball and rugby, doesn't mean all girls are.

Or more to the point that boys are happy with them doing so and offering pampering at primary really gives the wrong idea of girls worth to boys at a very impressionable age.

I think it's the word 'pampering' that makes me feel icky. My 5yo DD loves having her nails painted, playing at hairdressers, facepainting etc so I wouldn't have a problem with the activity necessarily as long as it was open to boys too. But they need another name! Why not just call it dressing up, at that age that's what it is.

Sounds fairly balanced, covers all options - not all kids want to play sport, build things or critique films. Some kids want to do what they see their parents doing - and surely that includes mum doing her nails, hair & makeup?

If they're saying that "Boys can only do these and Girls can only do these" then there's an issue, but if all subjects are open to all pupils isn't that what equality is about?

Yeah, if they called it dressing up it could cover still cover hair and nails, but play costumes, and face painting too, that's a much better idea

I think nails and stuff is a bit inappropriate for primary aged girls - the boys won't be practising shaving like their dads will they. Of course not, they don't have stubble yet and they are too young.

It's all kinds of wrong.

... and that's coming from someone who disagrees with 90% of the threads in this section. That tells you something.

I tell you something else - I rather wish I'd gone to school now instead of when I did - an entire afternoon building Lego or playing with plasticine - Bring It On!! and they wonder why so many kids get to 11 and can't read

It's the passivity that annoys me. OK at that age they will need some help but there should be direction from the child as to what is to be 'done' to them - perhaps it should be 'body art' !?

But should be an activity i.e. something the participants are actively involved in. Stage makeup or health studies would be better I think.