No more girls and boys; can our children go gender free? BBC 2 tonight

[Ekphrasis]

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09202lp

I heard PM in radio 4 discussing this research, it seems to hugely benefit girls in terms of their views on their own achievements and the achievements of women in general.

Will listen with interest.

What surprised me (as we have had this language banned in my place of work, with children) is that the teacher, pre experiment, called girls sweetie and petal, and boys buddy etc.

JoNapot

What was it you disagreed with?

I watched 5 minutes and turned off

So you missed the bit about girls under estimating their abilities?

The girl crying when she realised how good she was?

@Datun,

I am resistant to this and any other agenda that polices language and free thought and seeks to artificially control people and engineer specific outcomes. This applies to this gender/feminist issue, to trans issues, religious issues etc.

I believe in teaching critical thought and allowing children to develop their own unique perspectives on the world, not having a top down social engineering agenda.

I don't want my kid's heads filled with this rubbish. I want my children to have a wide variety of views and ideas and for them to form their own opinions as they mature into adults. Stop trying to brainwash them.

I don't want my kid's heads filled with this rubbish. I want my children to have a wide variety of views and ideas and for them to form their own opinions as they mature into adults. Stop trying to brainwash them

Some people would argue that the current position is brainwashing children into forming stereotypes and is conditioning them.

I don't understand how this is brainwashing. Telling girls that they can strong and that boys can be sensitive isn't really a radical agenda.

If we could bolster girls self esteem and reduce male aggression then society would be far happier.

and for them to form their own opinion

How do people form opinions? Opinions are formed by being exposed to a wide variety of views, messages, experiences and how we are treated.

All this programme is doing is giving different views away from what's being done before. Exposing children to different role models, showing the children what they can do and changing the typical teaching view.

@Thephoneywar that would only work if your kids were living with a bubble. With no influence from social media, tv, peers and others around them.

DD won't accept anyone telling her she can't do something because she's a girl as that's what I taught her. However, she came home from school saying things like boys can't wear hairclips,play with dolls etc because they're boys, as that's what she has learned from her peers.
Her best friends used to be boys,now they're not anymore as they dont play with girls. The change happened in a year,they're only 5!!
You are kidding yourself if you truly believe your kids won't be influenced by others.

Basically, opinions aren't formed in a vacuum. Opinions are formed by what we are exposed to.

This is widening the exposure.

Everyone in here who supports this, the people pushing this agenda. Stop trying to police peoples language and thoughts. It's everywhere. Every issues is picked apart and blame assigned.

Um, im not?! the RESEARCH has shown an issue with the way children are being brought up that fundamentally can potentially harm their abilities to achieve to their full potential.

Lexi had no self belief. Riley couldn't handle failure. Due to the gender stereotyping slowly dripped from everywhere. Sorry, not me. I've always tried to treat children equally regardless of gender.

Ive not watcged it but will do with my tween and teen dds as it will be good for discussion. DD2 just finished Y6 and throughout school had a male PE teacher who wasn't a qualified teacher - just a young sports coach. He'd ask for some ' strong boys' to help him carry equipment and definitely favoured the boys and boys sports over girls displaying a very laddish personal whenever I saw him swaggering around the playground. I complained to the HT about the girls' sports provision and got nowhere as it seemed this sports coach could do no wrong in her eyes.

Around 5/6 years ago Ofsted visited my dd's primary school and wrote in their report that the teaching wasn't 'boy orientated enough' because they'd seen a year 3 class all having to dress up....... as Anglo Saxons. wtf? I guess they thought it too girly to have a boy wear a tunic. All the children loved those historic dress up days.

persona

@Thephoneywar, read a bit of the Affluenza Virus, to get an understanding of how advertisers mould our lives. It's the modern day 'opium of the masses'.

All these 'ideologies' have already been foisted on to us. The programme is revealing the issues, not making them.

Thephoneywar

I completely agree. I think the language policing in our society at the moment is ridiculous. Particularly with regards to self expression and 'identity'.

I would love to see more education on how to train one's mind to think critically. Outside the box.

It infuriates me when people parrot phrases and write-off analysis with sweeping statements, but no backup argument.

I realise that many, or most arguments have an emotional element to them, but without logic and rationality, they quickly disintegrate.

But I think you're coming at this from the back end, not the front end.

I don't believe this is imposing an ideology as a social experiment. Despite what the programme makers think! Or intend.

I see this as a undoing years, centuries really, of a societal structure that has been rigourously imposed, 'from the top down'.

Most women work, many women work in business, are CEOs, journalists, MPs, doctors. But only because women pushed it. They said we can. And surely, you must know, they fought tooth and nail to be given these opportunities, because society rigourously enforced the idea that they couldn't.

And although we have come a long way, a quick glance at the statistics shows that we are by no means there.

Even five minutes on the feminist threads shows you how women still struggle with the glass ceiling, how they are struggling to make choices because of what society expects.

The idea that women can have it all, actually means that women must do it all.

These expectations are drilled in to children, from the minute they are born. Sometimes consciously, often unconsciously.

I don't see this project as enforcing anything. I see it removing the limitations for both boys and girls, so they can choose, anything, any time, with no outside pressure to conform.

Critical thinking cannot work, or will struggle to work, unless you remove unconscious bias.

It's no different to how teachers should have been taught about teaching children from different groups to make them feel included and to address the unconscious bias in the curriculum and from society as a whole.

Role models, books, looking at history teaching, the language used, how children are treated in class...

There has always been a bias in the classrooms and in society.

Snerf

I love being a women and have found that many times I also enjoy putting a dress on.

Yes me too, though I prefer jeans. However, what if you are a young boy who wants to wear the sparkly dress? It's ok for some up to school age, others not even then and it means, ya know, he could be queer or something. Oh, must be trans. Book the surgeon now.

It's not about saying you can't enjoy pretty dresses. Nothing in our genes says xx is attracted to sparkle and xy isn't; all humans throughout history have enjoyed glam, gold and sparkle. However, society now says you simply cannot wear the sparkly dress to the school disco if you're a boy.

Hear hear datun. (Have you watched it yet!?)

Re Steve Biddulph, I'm new to his stuff and really only seen the recent bits he's done regarding boys, men and emotions (man up campaign) and a lot about boys objectifying girls, early sexual violence etc. Perhaps he would rethink his early work?

*He has touched on the boys being very competitive and that they had far more words to describe anger than love. He also mentioned that 95% of the prison population is male

I know he's touched on it. I wonder if there'll be any discussion about why and to see if that behaviour can also be changed.* The why was when they asked the boys why and the answer was because they don't cry or show emotions. It builds up and that's why they feel angry all the time. One of the boys talking about their built up anger and trying to break his bed.

Also, most of them associated not crying to strength and being strong. It was not only the body strength that counted as strong. Both girls and boys agreed with this. I also, think it's the reason why Riley could not handle it when he was the only one who could not hit the target. He had seen himself as the strongest.

The girls said they just cry. They let it out.

There was a thread recently where I stated that emotional wellbeing of boys need tackling because it does spill out in other ways when they can't express it. The majority of people on that thread especially the op thought that by considering this as an issue was pandering to male needs and being nice to the menz. To me I see emotions as big part of tackling patriarchy. Emotions on both girls/women, men / boys. Anger in men is one of the biggest problem that affects women's wellbeing. The difference between being safe and being raped, attacked, abused, killed and so on.

However, society now says you simply cannot wear the sparkly dress to the school disco if you're a boy.

Oh no, sorry, you can but you must conform to or come out as trans or some sort of non binary agenda.

Oh, and in case you think this is just an issue for women. There is a man who has started a thread saying he is thinking of abandoning his PhD. His reasoning is that he would like to start a family in the next few years and wants to be a stay at home dad.

And here comes the conditioning:

He understands, or gathers, that when a couple decide to have children, it is often the woman who will choose to be the main caregiver, because the man is usually the better earner. (Many threads on mumsnet bear this out. People make this decision often based on financial reasons).

His reasoning is that he doesn't want to be in a position, where his wife feels obligated to be the main caregiver, due to him out earning her. He has this (skewed) idea, that if he reduces his earning potential, he increases his chance of being a stay-at-home dad. By not becoming the default breadwinner, based on his salary.

So a man is thinking of jacking in his degree, reducing his potential, in order to lower himself to the level of a woman, so they can make choices over who stays at home, from a level playing field.

And although I think most people would think he was daft, you can easily see why he thinks this. Being a stay at home dad as a decision is so outside the box, he is attempting to limit himself in order to achieve it.

You are quite right, maybe your daughters couldn't have done that. But then again, they had a stereotyping parent who never challenged them. Nor could many other non 6ft4 guys have done that either.

Yep - me (5') and my dad (5'5") sorted out my 8' fence posts that were in bad shape following high winds - we did call on DP (6'1") at one point to 'stand there and hold that up' because sometimes having a tall around makes things easier, but the skills were all among the shorties (DP isn't very practical), and we could have managed without DP if we had to - things like chopping wood, hammering, sawing etc. are as much (or more) about technique as strength in my experience.

I have a 3 and a 7 year old, and I was surprised at the level of boy/girl split in that school - DS's schools strove to avoid the dreaded boy/girl queues etc. which is one of the reasons I was so happy with them. They did excuse his handwriting for a bit longer than I was comfortable with (although they still did send him to OT - so perhaps they were just minimising for my sake) - in fact, the only sexist stereotyping came from the parents - boy/girl hampers in the Christmas raffle, comments on DS2 in pink dungarees or DS1 picking sparkly things etc.

And it does start early - DS2 announced he didn't want the 'girls stickers' and stuck to the fireballs and motorbikes ones until I pointed out that the 'girls' ones had gummy bears and jelly beans and sparkly butterflies. In many ways I'm lucky that DS1 is so wrapped up in his own little world that he just doesn't notice these things very much, so we're all a freeing influence on the much more desirous to conform DS2

Absolutely quencher.

The thing is, I do know emotional intelligence for all was a 'thing' in primary schools around 15 years ago. I wonder if other things have pushed it out? I'm not in the mainstream arena any more. We had countless staff meetings on it. But, we were in a very deprived area, with a lot of difficult backgrounds going on. Very interestingly, nothing was ever discussed regarding a gender difference. Maybe it was just my area?

It really only takes a few senior leaders in education to make these sort of changes in an LEA. Or not as the case may be. (Do LEAs even exist anymore ?!)

Ekphrasis

No, I'm going to watch it with DS.

It will take about three hours, because he will have an opinion every five seconds.

It really only takes a few senior leaders in education to make these sort of changes in an LEA

The 'hidden curriculum' has been a thing for ages. I was taught about it when I trained 17 years ago. I just think many people can't see it until it's pointed out to them - and they see the consequences of it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_curriculum

I'd love to have a gogglebox of that datun!

I liked the program.
I heard them discussing it on R4 PM, and felt very sad at hearing some of the clips (the "boys are cleverer because they become president more easily" bit especially ).
I also found it interesting how during the interview the presenter was at pains to say the program was not about gender identity, but about studying the sociological reasons for the differences between boys and girls.

I then forgot all about it, but DH put it on because he wanted to watch it and I thought it was very good - not perfect, but then it was only a one hour program, so how could they possible include all issues from all angles within that time frame?

I don't think it plays into trans ideology at all - quite the opposite, and I disagree with phoney in that I think the children's critical thinking skills were enhanced through the changes made - there seemed to be a lot of encouragement to ask questions about why they held the opinions they did. (Did you watch the program?) Challenging assumptions is always going to improve critical thinking, no matter what the final conclusions are.