OK for school to reinforce stereotypes?

[NumptyNu]

DS's school has invited the 'dads' in for a special science-themed day. I'm shocked to say the least. What kind of message does this send to the kids?

A. Science is for boys?
B. It's usual for dads to be out at work, hence the need for a special day for them. Mums do not work, they stay at home and bake cakes for the PTA?

I can see the logic of trying to reach out to the dads, but really? What do you think?

I'm reading all these (British) stereotypes and I must confess that -as a non-British person- I am a bit baffled. Science for boys? Reading "a female activity"?? I've never EVER heard of that before. I'll keep my eyes and ears open, lest it's something I'm jsut missing, and to prevent maintaining the stereotypes if I ever hear about them near me.
I know, I know, I'm not really contributing to the debate (or whatever), but I felt I had to say this.

We're trying lots of initiatives to model reading for boys-a bizarrely successful one was to prime the boy's PE teachers (universally worshipped!) to be a bit early for lessons and to be found reading a book when the class arrived.......

No, Five, that's actually a really helpful contribution. Because so many of the "pink is natural for little girls, innit, and little boys are all hyperactive thugs in khaki" brigade really do think that ladybrains can't count and men are by nature emotionally stunted so would never pick up a novel. So it's really great to have someone come along and say "you know, from an external perspective, your assumptions about what's natural just look completely bonkers." I remember a female friend from the Caribbean (doing a PhD in computing at a UK university) saying to me back in the early 90s that she found it really bizarre that in the UK computer science was seen as a man's subject, because back where she did her undergrad degree, the numbers were 50-50.

unlucky, I was one of 10 remaining female physics students in an undergraduate year of 130, by the end of the three years. Numbers started out around evens.

I'm having trouble with the whole thing that it needs to be a male to be a role model to a boy.

I read a lot (ebooks, fiction), DP reads a lot (on the computer, technical blogs/articles), DS (4) reads/is read to a fair bit.

Why wouldn't DS copy his mum as well as his dad? When do they stop identifying with women? Isn't that something that we could address too? DS1 is singularly self-centred, and couldn't care less that I don't have a penis like him, so why would he be more likely to look up to DP than me?

Ok, callooh, I hope you're feeling alright - you did sound dismissive, but I do understand sometimes it must get overwhelming and you must feel fed up.

I do think it must be helpful to know why you might be missing a mark, though? It's not as if people are personally blaming you - but if you didn't know that this sort of event might alienate as many people as it attracts, then surely, that's useful knowledge? Otherwise you're busting a gut for nothing.

Callooh - just to clarify. If I was OP I'd be apoplectic in private, but would go into the school and politely raise the issue, on the baseline assumption that it was cock up rather than conspiracy. And hopefully, if it was cock up rather than conspiracy, they'd then say "Oops, messed that one up, we'll pop a second letter in the book backs saying it's open to all parents and carers." If, instead, they responded by saying "well, we just want dads because we want to engage fathers more because they're under-represented" then I would be having very stern words about why then did they have to pick an event which would reinforce existing stereotypes rather than challenging them (unlike a "dads come in and read day" which I would have no problem with). Context is all.

But I think the reason I got cross with you is you seemed to be utterly dismissive of the idea that anything a school could do would matter (which is a bit depressing coming from a teacher), when in fact, for the children whose parents aren't engaged, the school and its authority figures are massively important (my mum spent a career teaching in comprehensives in sink estates, and what teachers did could be an oasis of calm and an escape from the maelstrom that was home life).

You still haven't replied to my (constructive) suggestions about stereotype threat. As a teacher, do you find this sort of research informs your practice in the classroom? Or do you ignore it because you believe the methodology to be flawed (and if so, in what way)?

I used to be a teacher Callooh and I sympathise at the feeling that you can't do right for doing wrong.

The problem is that the government identifies some general education problem such as poor engagement by dads or lower reading levels in boys and then tell schools they have to fix it, without giving them any inkling as to what's actually causing the problem or any guidance as to what might work to fix it. So, as well as being on their feet six hours a day every day dealing with the constant chaos that is teaching, teachers are expected to them come up with solutions to all of society's problems on a Thursday afternoon at a half-hour staff meeting in between a long day of teaching and a long evening of marking. It's fucking bonkers.

Of course these "solutions" show a lack of insight and thought - teachers are not social innovators or gods, they simply cannot come up with exactly the right thing to solve centuries of entrenched problems.

I would see this as teachers being very clever - target the dads with a "dad" activity - get them in, tick the boxes, show it to the relevant authorities, job number 4,7330 out of 56,456,7891 done.

If the government is serious about tackling these problems they need to get psychologists, social scientists, political thinkers etc etc to look at the problem properly, dissect it, find out what's causing it and then deliver the solutions themselves. Expecting teachers to do it is lazy, and frankly ridiculous.

"I'm having trouble with the whole thing that it needs to be a male to be a role model to a boy"

Why?

Of course they do Buffy. Part of it is patriarchal thinking - teachers are mums of the world, and mums do everything, just add it to their list, they'll sort it out. It's far better to have 33 think tanks being paid £4 million to say the same incorrect thing about the economy over and over (because that's important stuff, that men do, and need time to do, and be paid for) but mundane houseworky stuff like kids' reading? Teachers can solve that on a Thursday afternoon, for free.

I was not the poster who said you couldn't be arsed or that you were throwing toddler tantrums. So I think you're throwing a hissy fit at the wrong person.

Callooh, it was you that said that if anyone questioned anything about the "day" the teachers had put together they probably wouldn't even try to do it again. And you also dismissed out of hand the thought that ther was anything wrong with the "pink pillows for girls, blue for boys". Now I, for one, would be bothered about a teacher who did not think seriously qbout issues like this.........

*"I'm having trouble with the whole thing that it needs to be a male to be a role model to a boy"

Why?*

Well I didn't make the point, but I agree with it. Why can't women be role models for boys? Surely accepting that boys simply cannot find women interesting or inspiring or worthy of emulation is accepting that women are, on balance, a bit rubbish and it's a bit much to expect any self respecting six year old to listen to a mere woman (an attitude that I think is a much bigger problem for boy's achievement than the problem of too many women in education about which there's so much handwringing).

Of course women can be, and are, role models for boys. As men can be for girls. But surely it's obvious that girls need female role models as they figure out how to be women? So boys need men. And it is sad but true that most of the "readers" are women. No point telling me your Dp reads 15 books a week- most of the consumers of magazines and books-particularly fiction- are women. So if a girl is looking to women for clues about adult life she is likely to see reading. Boys, looking to men, aren't.

I'd be fuming. And then would reply (as DM) that I would be delighted to attend, thank you very much, as DH is keener on cooking/haberdashery etc.

Seriously, people do not think and are not even aware of the stereotypes. The (very lovely) class reps for DS set up a mailing list for school-related comms addresses to mothers only, even though they have email addresses for both parents. DH is now one of two men on the list- for us it is both a principle and a practicality since I work a long way from home and it is of no help at all for me to receive a last-minute reminder about correct attire for that day when I am halfway across town.

Back to science day, please do challenge it. Parents should be invited, up to each family to decide who attends (besides, what happens to a child with 2 mummies, or simply no daddy?).

I'm sorry, it was me who mentioned toddler tantrums, and I was being an arse.

I was being unfair. You obviously do work hard. I was frustrated because, to me, initially it sounded as if you thought it was fundamentally wrong of anyone to object to this situation. And that did make me see red, a bit.

But, I do think you are being unfair too. You talk of schools and teachers making huge efforts - and they do, but not like this! Teachers and schools I know of would be really upset to think they might have inadvertently fucked up. They wouldn't just excuse it.

I get that you may have just been having a rotten day, when everything feels like too much work. But ultimately, it's not really ok to say we won't bother because it's hard work, is it?

IMO teachers should say, "You know what, it's my job to teach children. It is not my job to get lazy fathers to realise that when they decided to have children that didn't mean they just had to orgasm and carry on as normal, that being a parent actually involves effort. Sorry, not my problem."

Fathers not engaging in their children's lives in a massive societal problem. Expecting schools to solve it, with no guidance, and no tools to do so is so nonsensical I can't even begin to think how anyone imagines it's a good idea.

This is what I'm having trouble grasping Hakluyt - why do boys need male role models for reading - I can understand for peeing standing up, for personal hygiene, for things that are things that only men do, but for reading, why can't they look to all adults in their life? What are the stats for boys in single male parent households vs. single female parent households like for reading? (and I realise that there are a wealth of confounding factors there)

Digging deeper, I do understand that if you don't see women pilots (to pick something I just read on the BBC news), then you don't realise women can be pilots and don't aspire, but, it seems to me that perhaps we've got this the wrong way round - rather than provide more role models of the appropriate sex, why aren't we figuring out why it matters which sex a role model is.

I'm definitely in over-thinking territory here, I know.

But surely it's obvious that girls need female role models as they figure out how to be women? So boys need men.

Well I would have said that there's a certain inevitability to girls becoming women and boys becoming men regardless of role modeling, but I think you want me to agre that it's essential that girls learn how to perform gender from women, and boys from men. But I don't think it's essential for anyone to learn that. So I don't think it's vitally important that boys see men reading or cooking because they couldn't possibly understand that they can unless they see penised people doing those things. The fact that boys simply cannot see reading as an activity they may enjoy because it's all what stupid, useless women do when they're not standing around with their tits out is a more pressing issue in my opinion.