Single sex birthday parties

[15thaugust]

My daughter who is only 5 came home a bit upset as she hasn't been invited to one of her classmates parties 'because he's having a football party and has only invited boys' she likes him, likes football and also said to me 'I invited him to my party' so feels aggrieved. Another girl in her class is having only the girls for a craft party. I am furious with the lazy-brained parents who can't see anything wrong with this! I haven't said anything yet to either child's parents, but it's only a matter of time and opportunity!

dallas

I do appreciate that you have used the word "all" in previous posts, you just didnt in your last post

Imagine if someone poster "the girls in the class have no interest in football, science or maths" - I am pretty sure someone would call this as sexist! You have done exactly the same thing. [IceBeing]

If they didn't understand that sexism arises from the concept of gender, then yes, they might (sexism being the means by which the concept of gender is put into action). If they did understand what the terms mean then would rightly point to the malign influence of gender, because that is what the social construct of gender does to people. Sticking with biology otoh, means you have to actually prove anything you make up about male attributes vs female attributes.

If you admit the idea that there is such a thing as a lady brain, of course it makes sense that girls wouldn't want to do hard maths. Because in the hierarchical world of gender only boys do that.

Well that makes it clearer. Not.

Honestly, I'm no longer sure what is going one here < TwilightZone>

There is quite a lot written on this. And, obviously, there is no clear conclusion about the origins of the children tendency to segregate, but lots of evidence about the negative impact on gender roles and children's development. [Camaleon]

Well yes, there is. Is it news to you?

And none of it has anything to do with genderisation, which of course is dangerous, but segregation is only an element of malign genderisation if the context is the assumption that boy groups are superior to girl groups.

Yes mathanxiety. It is news to me. I have had an 'instinct' about it, not really read much about this particular angle of the topic. I have tried to understand arguments supporting single sex education without much success (not sure if it is related to the limitations of my lady brain, or my convictions, which are interfering with rational thinking).

Is this OK with you or shall I keep myself quite, until I reach the level (as my daughter with football) where I am good enough to play with you?
What' s your point? You have already sorted it out. Sex segregation is natural, and therefore, good. Freud said so.

almondpudding said: 'There is nothing critical of gender roles in that whole article'.

Both articles refer to relevant scholarship re gender stereotyping. I think we more or less agree that gender stereotyping can be damaging (although lots of other literature suggest that not conforming to the stereotype may be damaging too and have a relevant impact on mental health).

I have left both links as useful references regarding the nature versus nurture debate at a very basic level (the one I operate at; I have never really read about this before)

I realise I am not very clear: I have never read about the link between 'natural' socialisation preferences in children/child development and gender roles. This was the point of linking some of the information I found useful when seeking for it myself.

And I meant quiet... not quite...arghh

Yes, it is indeed natural, and good, between age 5/6 and 12/13. Freud and others said so.

Wrt the paper you linked:
"Research Gaps
We still know little about exactly how peers socialize young girls’ and boys’ behaviours....Longitudinal studies, in which children are observed and followed up over time, are needed to better understand same- and other-gender peer socialization."

There is a big chunk of that paper, from half way down the section called 'Conclusions' to half way down the section called 'Implications for Parents, Service Providers, and Policy Makers' that is completely lacking in footnotes, that is just the author pushing a (half baked) proposal that ignores the obvious -- children naturally and of their own accord choose to socialise with same sex peers. The conclusion that other sex socialisation is needed in order to make the world a better place is not supported by anything in the early part of the paper where it is noted that 'Longitudinal studies, in which children are observed and followed up over time, are needed to better understand same- and other-gender peer socialization'