Boys and girls who conform to gender stereotypes do worse at school

[noblegiraffe]

Interesting article in the Independent about a study that asked Y11s questions designed to identify how well they fit gender expectations, and then collected their GCSE grades once sat and compared outcomes.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/gcses-boys-girls-masculine-stereotypes-study-a9647316.html]]

What I found quite interesting was that the percentage of boys who didn’t strongly conform to gender stereotypes was 69%.

The headline seems to suggest it’s a small group rather than the majority, and I know boys and young men who feel that they are ‘wrong’ because they don’t fit the expected gender roles.

“The study said a large sub-group of girls, who conformed fairly rigidly to some traditional feminine norms, could be at risk academically.”

I thought the traditional feminine norms were being quiet and studying hard so I wonder what they are talking about here? An interest in boys, hair and make-up?

There are where I come from

Children with intelligent and/or educated parents are less likely to have been raised according to stereotypes.

That doesn't automatically equate to being middle class though. You can be intelligent and/or educated and still be working class. And i disagree that children with educated parents are less likely to be raised in accordance with stereotypes. Look around you, it's the children of the middle class and the wealthy that are mostly propgating all this non-binary and identifying as trans nonsense.

Overwhelmingly wc kids conform to gender stereotypes more. Boys are into football and sport and things like long hair aren't especially tolerated. Boys are taught to be tough. Girls are dressed nicely and spend majority of time with mum. Whereas mc boys may have longer hair and are encouraged to enjoy creative pursuits...mc mums generally don't have qualms with their dds not looking pretty all the time in nice outfits.

I grew up in a thoroughly working class area in south wales and i don't recognise what you've written at all. There were boys who liked football of course, but there was also a huge group of boys in my year group that had long hair, were into music, and the only sport they cared about was skateboarding.
As for girls "looking pretty and spending most of their time with mum" - don't most teenage girls spend time with each other? That's how it was in the places i lived anyway. I knew a few girls like myself who had no interest in "looking nice" but cared more about gaming and stuff like that. But then wanting to "look nice" doesn't mean you can't like football or gaming, or that you 100% conform to gender stereotypes.
About the spending most of their time with mum thing, you can't really generalise that it's a working class thing just because that's what you've observed where you live. Also, what's the cultural/ethnic mix like? Because that can also play a part in the sort of things you're talking about.

@janmeyer

I live in London...I think it's different here

'Could you explain why there are so many women plumbers, painters & decorators, van drivers, train drivers, lorry drivers'

Not round here either.

V male dominated although less so with tube and bus drivers now.

On class. V middle class round here and usual sterotypes apply and children pushed into them.

I would love to see the survey they got the children to do, is it available? The classification of the children seemed to show a weird dynamic. Non conforming boys are resistors while girls are 'wild' was really odd language.

I'm not even really convinced that outstanding school results are that important in the real world. Maybe they never were. However, I'd caveat that by saying that I've known a few real high flyers who managed to get on fast track schemes in big companies etc based upon results and are or doing very well.

But, generally, as long as you're not a really poor achiever academically, it seems to me that the traits which are most likely to result in high earnings are people skills and ambition, etc. The drive to set up your own company and get out there and find clients.

Like my mate who left school at 16 to become a landscaper and now makes over £100k in his early 30s with his plumbing business. And my sister's mate who always struggled at school but is now becoming a partner at one of the top magic 3 (she always had good people skills). I see a lot of middle class kids with a good education but little ambition and I always wonder if it's because they've been bankrolled by their parents all their life.

@Shmurf

I'm not even really convinced that outstanding school results are that important in the real world. Maybe they never were. However, I'd caveat that by saying that I've known a few real high flyers who managed to get on fast track schemes in big companies etc based upon results and are or doing very well.

But, generally, as long as you're not a really poor achiever academically, it seems to me that the traits which are most likely to result in high earnings are people skills and ambition, etc. The drive to set up your own company and get out there and find clients.

Like my mate who left school at 16 to become a landscaper and now makes over £100k in his early 30s with his plumbing business. And my sister's mate who always struggled at school but is now becoming a partner at one of the top magic 3 (she always had good people skills). I see a lot of middle class kids with a good education but little ambition and I always wonder if it's because they've been bankrolled by their parents all their life.

I know a woman who trained as a plumber because her father had a (very minimal) family business and she was his only child. He may have pushed her into the field but he also taught her so well that she got a lot of respect from others in her later training.

She owns the firm now. An a Jaguar. And a villa somewhere in Spain.

So yes, marketable skills are great and marketable skills with good money are the bests. Train in something that people will need when times are bad AND when times are good and you will always have bread.

Break into the male dominated blue-collar fields and develop
selective deafness against all the slurs and stuff, and you are going to be well off. And many female-dominated blue-collar jobs are no more comfortable and pay less than half of plumbing.

She is a tiny little thing but she tells me it comes in handy while crawling inside walls.

I'd be interested to know if the results were any different in single sex schools. It can be easier for girls to ask and answer the questions that help them learn without the presence of boys.

Yes, I fully agree. Two close friends who were single sex Ed definitely have a level of confidence that me and out other friends don't. One is a really kick ass engineer who's had to break a number of glass ceilings.

The research also backs up the opposite side of the single sex / co Ed stuff re boys in mixed schools do better.

The research also backs up the opposite side of the single sex / co Ed stuff re boys in mixed schools do better.

I've seen some which suggests boys may also do better (or at least as well) in single sex, just not as marked a difference as for girls. And also that the benefit for girls was not so great (though still positive) for the high achievers - the ones who can do well anywhere - as for the somewhat less able groups.

'Could you explain why there are so many women plumbers, painters & decorators, van drivers, train drivers, lorry drivers'

Hardly any. I wonder if that poster has observed some and translated that as 'many'. there is a phenomenon whereby in traditionally Male-dominated activities if the percentage of women reaches about 30% people may see it as equal or even that they're taking over. I doubt women have reached even that level in the sectors mentioned above.

@ErrolTheDragon some was perhaps a better word, rather than many.

I get exrremely hacked off with this MC point of view about the working class. I can now feel my blood beginning to boil at just the thought of the amount of stereotyping that goes on, as though it's ok to put a MC opinion out there as being accurate. It reminds me that it's ok to say Nothing About Me Without Me from feminism but that should be equally true about WC women, especially about WC women.

I grew up WC had a good brain went to Single Sex Grammar, ended up being MC but boy are my WC roots there if I see the stereotyping. I am back there and saying 'JUST DONT'

OK, calmer now

Hold on a minute

So the idea is that girls who conform strongly to gender sterotype become plumbers.

Presumably boys who conform strongly to gender sterotype are being talked about in terms of sharp end opportunities in the beauty industry? I know some people women in that area who have built very successful small businesses.

???!!!

So the idea is that girls who conform strongly to gender sterotype become plumbers.

No.

@NiceGerbil

FFS

Why FFS

This thread is about girls and boys who conform strongly to gender sterotype underperforming at school.
Poster says, formal education is over rated and I know loads of women who have been successful in sterotypically male jobs.

Why FFS.

The two ideas don't meet at all. The whole point of sex sterotypes is they are highly restrictive. The idea that girls who have less successful formal education results linked to their adherence to strong gender role, simply break through in massively male dominated more physical roles is missing the point

A girl or a boy who is wedded to sterotype is pretty unlikely to want to do that. That's the whole point. The restrictions of gender prevent it.

Not sure why all the FFS tbh

@ErrolTheDragon

The research also backs up the opposite side of the single sex / co Ed stuff re boys in mixed schools do better.

I've seen some which suggests boys may also do better (or at least as well) in single sex, just not as marked a difference as for girls. And also that the benefit for girls was not so great (though still positive) for the high achievers - the ones who can do well anywhere - as for the somewhat less able groups.

I would have struggled at a girls school as I had mostly male friends - v high achiever. I couldn’t understand the girls’ cliques.

Getting a bit confused about the WC/MC stuff.

I would have struggled at a girls school as I had mostly male friends - v high achiever. I couldn’t understand the girls’ cliques.

Maybe, but my observation of DD at her girls' grammar was that there was a bigger choice of girls and so more possible to find your tribe(s) - be it geeky, sporty or whatever not just the 'popular group' (a term which DD would use in a tone which made it fairly clear that their 'popularity' was limited).

You might be right..

I went to a mixed primary, single sex secondary, mixed 6th form.

With 120 girls in my year at secondary I found plenty of people! And I suppose that's the thing, if it's all girls, they are all people more? Sporty, science, arty, funny etc etc

Boys have cliques too, to be fair. I don't think girls have a monopoly on that.

I do like blokes and always have. That's personality though. I have plenty of female friends but they seem more serious. Probably because, well, socialisation.

The fact that I had no idea that my a level choices were unusual until I went into classes and was in a massive minority says something. I hadn't consumed any messages about who does what because in a single sex school, there isn't any of that.

(Barring certain religious schools obv).

Into classes at 6th form that should say! For a level.

I would have struggled at a girls school as I had mostly male friends - v high achiever. I couldn’t understand the girls’ cliques

Oh I do love a ,"I'm not like other girls" post.

Go on - blow your own trumpet and put down other women.

I'm sure there will be posters on here just loving this extremely dubious "research" as it validates their sense of superiority of not being like those silly feminine girls.

Why so nasty?

Fascinated has said maybe would have been ok.

No need to go for her like that.

I’m not going to apologise for my reality. Most of the girls excluded me apart from one v unusual arty type and another very tall one (like me). Lots of the boys were horrible to me too. I think the siphoning off of certain types of girl (and boy) due to private education was probably my biggest problem. But yeah, you blame me.

I’ve come to terms with being a woman late in life, with pregnancy and birth, but we are all different. Growing up in the Yuppie/ Thatcher era wasn’t easy as a girl, there was a lot of pressure to conform to masculine traits to be seen as successful. You’re pretty good at putting down women yourself, @DidoLamenting.

I think I’m going to stop these online discussions, it’s all a bit personal.

I would have struggled at a girls school as I had mostly male friends - v high achiever. I couldn’t understand the girls’ cliques. Oh I do love a ,"I'm not like other girls" post. Go on - blow your own trumpet and put down other women.

It's not "putting down other women" to state the facts about your experience with something. I had more male than female friends throughout school too, something which is actually quite common for girls with autism. Are all us autistic women who experienced what fascinated described "putting other women down" too?
I just didn't fit in very well with most other girls growing up, should i or fascinated pretend that's not the case? Why do you think that's "putting other women down?"