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?

Hmmm DH has just told me that two of DS's er.....spirited, little mates (boys) signed up for pampering but were chucked off. Moved into sewing apparently. That's really not on.

Have to say I like sooperdoopers face painting idea. It's more fun and a fair bit more creative and I think would also have a wider appeal. You could see them being able to do end of term plays with full stage makeup included prosthetics with a bit of help.

I also think that pampering is linked in with class culture stuff to. I can't imagine there is lots of working class/under class women that are going regularly for mani/pedis/blow dries. It's aspiration in a way that being good at football or netball or hockey or swimming isn't because it's about having pure leisure time and I don;t think that is the reality for lots and lots of women and men.

Haz, there are lots of well groomed women among the parents at our school (state primary in affluent area). I imagine mum going to the salon is very normal for many of the children.

OK so if you are feeling combative then a copy of their equality etc policy and an appt with the head is the start.

If the head was asked "do you agree with sexual equality blah blah etc" they will say YES.

And then hit them with the FACT that they are sexist tossers.

Not too fucking diffiucult to come up with primary school stuff that will appeal to all.

Pampering doesn't seem very creative (though I suppose it could be if it's hair and nails) and the least academic of the options. Though, if they were going to raise money for charity, they could at least learn some business skills along the way? Or am I just clutching at straws?!

If they are changing the activities each term (did I read that right?) then the impact of this choice will be less. And it does seem as if the aim is lighter fun stuff as well as sports etc.

But I still think its a dubious choice as it is excessively frivolous compared to the other choices and is tied in to appearance and body image (often thorny areas).

If they wanted to do something 'girly' (ugh, but if they're trying to provide a range of activities I can see where they're coming from), then I hope sports other than football are available some terms, and perhaps you could suggest some other things like jewellery making or knitting which teach new skills.

They are too young to be doing their nails. That's what's wrong with it.
Amongst other things. Like 'pampering' not being either sporty or especially creative.

Ugh. Pampering for primary school girls is just ugh. Except in a play dressing up way.

Moomin oh dear my argument may not hold much truck then:)

It sounds like they let the kids choose what the activities were? I don't like the term 'pampering', but the actual activity sounds ok. There are a good range of choices and as long as all the kids are free to choose whichever they like I don't really see a problem. I agree with your post feminist DD.

The fact they've restricted it to just girls by moving the boys who signed up proves its not equal!! Would they do the same if a girl had chosen football?? That in itself it enough to base a complaint on

If they've moved the boys because they are boys, then that is unacceptable.

If they've moved them because of their 'spirited' behaviour, then fine. I would expect a girl to be removed from the football activity if her behaviour was naughty 'overly spirited'. I would expect any child to be removed from any activity if they couldn't behave themselves.