School axes head boy and head girl roles, two boys are voted into new gender neutral positions

[Kookabura]

Link to telegraph article here: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/04/17/grammar-school-axes-head-boy-head-girl-roles-bid-establish-gender/

It probably isin some instances

If my ironic u/n was that unironic i think that would, in and of itself, be quite ironic...

Because the attention that people keep feeding him is tasty and delicious!

They have three girls on the "team" to do the work.

Ugh. This is such utter crap, dressed up as being progressive.

Head boy and head girl is fair, Patriarchy. That way, both sexes are equally represented.

No, 50/50 in midwifery would not be a good idea.

Feminism is not about "equality". (honestly, why do men keep saying that?)

Sonic

I said earlier I think you are right. Head Boy and Head Girl positions are the best solution in a school environment. Nobody feels slighted and it gets rid of these kind of issues. However, in this case that's not what they have chosen to go with, so we are where we are.

I don't see how forced equality of representation would be fair in politics, media etc, but unfair in midwifery for example? What about nursing? Another area where men are grossly under-represented? Why is it only fair in one direction?

I accept there is no one definition of Feminism, but most of the widely accepted (and quoted) definitions are usually something along the lines of:

a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes

Is that wrong? If so then what is the 'right' definition and on who's authority are you redefining it?

I really hope this doesn't become a new trend for those Headteachers who want to show that they're terribly progressive. Like declaring uniform "gender neutral" when it really isn't when you look at the detail.

Patriarchy, If on average men get 80% of any opportunities when in reality there is a 50 50 split in the fundamental capabilities of men and women, how exactly is forcing a 50 50 split through positive discrimination bad? The only men that will be disadvantaged are the ones who only got the prize because they were men , not because they were best at the job.

Example: an orchestra was choosing its members purely on ability...or so they thought. Most of the orchestra was male. Tough, women should practise more.
Then they moved to blind auditions. Suddenly many more women were getting the jobs.

And I said caoability| in some cases there may be fewer women applying even though they are perfectly capable because of prior discrimination and societal expectation. By moving towards 50 50 split where sensible, it helps to change the societal expectation and increase the number of women coming through the earlier stages - because suddenly it is worth trying.

I really don’t understand why midwifery keeps getting brought up as an area in desperate need of male representation - it implies that the person making the point really doesn’t understand the role and significance of midwifes, or their patients (clue: they’re not the cute wittle babies).

Women don't get top jobs, not because they are less qualified or less capable. They don't apply for them in the first place. Sometimes this is because they have child caring responsibilities. But more often than not it comes down to confidence.

The BBC had a gender program in a school where they sort to tackle this. They found at age seven this lack of confidence was already socialised into girls. They underestimated their own ability and they lacked confidence. Boys on the other hand were already socialised to believe they were 'better' than girls.

With that in mind, going gender neutral, if the heads are picked by peers is almost always going to result in girls not getting the top position. If they are picked by the teacher, there could still be an issue over how many girls put themselves forward, knowing they are competing with boys who they are socialised to recognise as better. Yes the head could counter that and put in two girls at the expense of the girls, but for the most part because of the way girls and boys respond to each other and value their own worth its heavily stacked against girls.

The boys were voted in. They got the head-role not just "because they are boys" but because they got more votes than everyone else. That's called democracy. Where's the sexism?

@Trans1976 this is a one off example, you are right, it is not a clear cut example of sexism. However, my many years of life suggest to me that if many schools went the same way, the same pattern would be repeated at which point it would be proven to be sexism.

Here we have a 1 in 4 chance of this occurring naturally

I think what many of us here are saying is that we don't believe for one moment that society is yet capable of judging people entirely on their merits, but uses poor classifications such as sex as part of a short cut decision making tool

Quite, @RedToothBrush, and it's very disappointing that a head teacher either isn't aware of this or doesn't believe it.

I don't see how forced equality of representation would be fair in politics, media etc, but unfair in midwifery for example? What about nursing? Another area where men are grossly under-represented? Why is it only fair in one direction?

In general nursing, there should be more men represented. I wouldn't expect them to be equally employed in gynae clinics, however. But would expect a higher proportion of men than women in andrology.

I accept there is no one definition of Feminism, but most of the widely accepted (and quoted) definitions are usually something along the lines of

a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes

Is that wrong? If so then what is the 'right' definition and on who's authority are you redefining it?

Feminism is the liberation of women from the oppression of the Patriarchy.

PP, with all due respect, you are on the Feminism board on Mumsnet. Maybe trust us to know what Feminism is and what feminists are campaigning for.

Hint: it's not to have a 50% chance of the midwife with his hand inside labouring women being male.

Surely they got there on merit and votes?

I bet there wouldn't have been a thread if 2 girls had got in. And anyone complaining about that would have been told that they got in on votes.

trans, the sexism comes when you make the selection process inherently biased in favour of one sex over the other. This voting process and the process leading up to it disadvantages females.

Unless you think that Parliament, for example, has historically not been unfairly over representative of straight, white, middle-class men. No sexism involved in politics?

kalapattar, girls are the oppressed, disadvantaged group in the sex class. It's not the same comparison to say nobody would have a problem with it being two girls.

However, in spite of that, I still think it should have been a head boy and a head girl. So I still think it would be unfair and a stupid new policy.

Temporaryname098

I understand what you are saying, but where is your evidence that men get 80% of all opportunities? If women are not applying for jobs, it may be because of biased expectations, or it might be because they just don't want to do that kind of job?

I think we absolutely should get rid of as many gendered stereotypes as possible that encourage women to not think they are suitable for certain roles or job types, but I don't think the way to do that is to 'force' 50/50 representation. I don't think it would change societal expectation to be honest, I think it would just breed resentment, particularly if it wasn't seen to be even handed. (are we really going to make a significant percentage of young girls take building apprenticeships for example, or force 50/50 representation amongst rubbish collection teams, or encourage girls to become farm labourers, in order to be seen to fairly address gender disparity in all professions?)

The example you gave is a good one that shows better ways to deal with these kind of issues. The orchestra could have 'fixed' their problem by insisting that they had a 50/50 split of men and women. Instead they brought in gender blind auditioning. A simple but effective solution. That's the way to make effective changes.

@kalapater. Not the do not get there on merit.

The idea that people vote / employ people purely on merit has been totally debunked.

Next time you apply for a job, send your cv in twice but change the name on one copy. The one with the male ( or white ) name will get invited to many more interviews.

People make choices based on their unconscious bias which exists in the fast part of the brain. The brain can use fast ( cheap) processes to make a choice or slow ( expensivene) processes. Fast processes are fantastic in dangerous situations. They are dangerous in other situations, and once your brain has made a fast choice, your slow brain will then justify it for you.

So as a society, we tend to see men as leaders, because most leaders are men so that gets wired into the fast brain. Then we decide to vote for a man and convince ourselves that he is clearly the stronger (!) candidate. Because that requires less mental effort overall.

I guess historically physical strength in a leader could have been a really useful thing.

SonicVersusGynaephobia

Feminism is the liberation of women from the oppression of the Patriarchy

To be fair, that's the definition of radical feminism, which is one branch of feminism. On whose authority is that the most valid and only definition?

Why is that any more valid definition of feminism than say, the definition of marxist feminism, or liberal feminism, or eco-feminism for example?

marxist feminism, or liberal feminism, or eco-feminism

I admit I'm not very well up on feminism, but I never heard of any of them Just as I never heard of intersectional feminism before I came here.

Feminism is very straightforward in most women's minds, it's about not being oppressed or having fewer opportunities because you're a woman.

Noticing we're in the "Feminist Talk" category, would this have even been criticised if two females were elected? I know most women say feminism is about equality between the sexes, but it seems to be specifically about women being equal to men. And if that hasn't occurred to anyone before, then the rebranding of "human rights" as essentially women's rights (feminism) might make one pose the question, is feminism inherently sexist.

cforte0 after would this even warrant a mention if two girls were elected?

All these new and improved feminisms were made up because plain ole feminism is just not very good- what could anyone possibly say about women that is important- talk about things that include men like ecology or marxism. Or jstfu.

Or jstfu.

Nailed it.