Schools told to encourage boys to play netball and dance to 'balance gender'

[flicka]

Stupidity isn't limited to the UK. There have been several instances of such things happening here, too.

Games such as dodgeball, king of the hill, and tag have been banned and in some places, recess is being done away with altogether.

So what? They have probably been replaced with new games anyway. I think the problem is people get upset when their childhood isn't exactly reflected in the childhood of today's kids. But nature has a way of taking care of this kind of thing....we die, and the living do whatever they want.

I don't understand people who feel personally threatened when things aren't always done exactly they way THEY did it in perpetuity. Remember, the only thing we know for sure is that things always change.

 

[InvisibleViolet]

I really don't see why some people have such a big problem with this.

 

[WarEagle]

So what? They have probably been replaced with new games anyway. I think the problem is people get upset when their childhood isn't exactly reflected in the childhood of today's kids. But nature has a way of taking care of this kind of thing....we die, and the living do whatever they want.

I don't understand people who feel personally threatened when things aren't always done exactly they way THEY did it in perpetuity. Remember, the only thing we know for sure is that things always change.

It isn't that they did away with games, it's why they're doing away with them.

 

[simplicity]

I remember being forced to make a table, wash dishes and help bake muffins during Home Economics. I was so totally brainwashed. I'm still doing all of those things - even though I'm not being marked anymore.

 

[SolomonVII]

How... painful.

That would explain BYU kicking UNLV's butts every year...

Oh sorry, I missed this. In the pursuite of gender equality, I guess I was too busy with my Lamaze classes.

As far as football goes, I think it is about 90% coaching and system as to who wins and who doesn't.

Teh thing about football though, you can't play without getting hit every play. When schools going more and more toward non-competitive purusuits, this is a nice counterbalance.

Ooh, my muffins are burning! Gotta go!

 

[Lockguy3000]

I think some people here is getting mixed with "football"

In the UK, "football is soccer

 

[*Starlight*]

That's a very good thing. It's important to teach people that gender stereotypes are wrong... and it's especially important to teach that to children in schools, so that they don't grow up with wrong stereotypes integrated into their worldviews.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

When I was in school the boys did all the same lessons as the girls and vice versa never was there any big deal made about it. But then again you are using the Daily Mail as a source.

Anyway do you prefer this? Should appeal to your "macho" sensibilities and not endanger your all so important masculinity.

RAAARRRRRR

Boys in nursery schools should not be discouraged from playing with toy guns and other weapons, the government says. In guidance for nurseries in England, the Department for Children, Schools and Families says staff should resist a "natural instinct" to stop such play.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7163741.stm

 

[*Starlight*]

When I was in school the boys did all the same lessons as the girls and vice versa never was there any big deal made about it. But then again you are using the Daily Mail as a source.

Anyway do you prefer this? Should appeal to your "macho" sensibilities and not endanger your all so important masculinity.

RAAARRRRRR

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7163741.stm

Well, I hope that, according to that government, girls shouldn't be discouraged as well.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Well, I hope that, according to that government, girls shouldn't be discouraged as well.

I don't think they mentioned girls because there was no point trying to stop them. Playing Kiss or Kill was brutal.

 

[SolomonVII]

The idea that the difference between the genders is only due to social conditioning has been thoroughly demonstrated to be wrong years ago.
Science teaches that male and female have evolved with different tendencies along the masculine/feminine continuum, and these differences likewise find expression in what the Christian traditions teach about masculine and feminine aspects of spirituality.

It would be far more important is schools focussed upon finding ways that boys could be allowed to express their statistically greater masculine traits in positive ways, and girls be allowed to develop the feminine traits that cluster according around memebers of the same gender.

It is not as if schools are any longer value neutral when it comes to these traits. One would hope that Ritalin is not used to the sam extent to contain the masculinity of boys in the schools in the UK as much as it is over here, but this is one example of how schools and masculine traits are at odds withone another. It is easier for schools to subdue a boys masculinty than channel it into positive espression.

Far better then for schools to teach boys to esteem their masculine traits and learn how to express them in ways in which they will become manly, and encourage girls to esteem their feminninty as well.

Now I doubt that math or science or cooking or learning the basics of taking care of your clothes and your body have much to do with either masculinity or femininity, but there are real ways that boys and girls, men and women express themselves that are different.

This assumption that boys and girls are the same is simply wrong. Hence, it would be a better use of a schools resources to teach boys how to become men, and girls how to become women rather than continuing on a path of blurring the differences and thereby creating gender confusion for both sexes.

 

[*Starlight*]

Hi CoyoteWild! From a statistical point of view, you may be right that traditionally masculine traits are more common among boys, and traditionally feminine traits are more common among girls. However, it's not true for every single person... some people just naturally don't fit into such traditional ideas. That's why it's good to encourage people to express themselves, no matter if they fit into such ideas or not. That includes girls being naturally feminine, boys being naturally masculine, boys being naturally feminine, and girls being naturally masculine. However, the latter two categories of people, because of the traditional idea of gender roles in the society, are often discouraged from expressing themselves, and even forced to be someone they are not. That's why such gender equality programs at schools are needed... to show people that there's nothing wrong with being yourself, no matter if it fits into a traditional worldview, or not.

 

[Trevorocity]

Far better then for schools to teach boys to esteem their masculine traits and learn how to express them in ways in which they will become manly, and encourage girls to esteem their feminninty as well.

Except that what is "manly" and "feminine" IS socially determined. So there really is no point in trying to teach such attributes since the kids will pick up on them anyway.

This assumption that boys and girls are the same is simply wrong. Hence, it would be a better use of a schools resources to teach boys how to become men, and girls how to become women rather than continuing on a path of blurring the differences and thereby creating gender confusion for both sexes.

Or what? Men will do the cooking and cleaning and women will put in long hours at the office? I know I have a unique perspective on things (being gay and all) but if I had kids I wouldn't want The Man telling them how to act masculine or feminine. No boys and girls are not the same. But I see no compelling reason to shuffle them in to gender-conformist roles simply for the sake of old-fashioned sensibilities about the roles of men and women. Nor is there any harm in "failing" to do so in my opinion.

 

[burrow_owl]

It would be far more important is schools focussed upon finding ways that boys could be allowed to express their statistically greater masculine traits in positive ways

It's equally important that boys and girls that don't express their gender conventionally not be ostracized.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi CoyoteWild! From a statistical point of view, you may be right that traditionally masculine traits are more common among boys, and traditionally feminine traits are more common among girls.

The evidence is much more than just statitsitics. Science is concentratign as much on the very real and meaningful differences in the physiology of gender than jsut the statistical expressions of behavior.

However, it's not true for every single person... some people just naturally don't fit into such traditional ideas.

Free societies are fundamentlayy based on giving the individual free expression. This is not the same thing as acting as if the norms do not exist, or are or secodary importance.
If as scientists of a sort, we assume evolution to be true, then the underlying assumption that we ought to accept is that men and women evolved differently as a result of such differential evolution being somehow important to enhancing the rate of survival.
If the underlying ideology that gender differences are the result of social condition aloen is proven to be scientifically wrong, and it has been, then this in itself is a lesson to us.
If have evolved with different modes of thinking and behavior according to behavior because such differences have been a net benefit, then as intellgient thinking beings, we ought to be playing to these strengths.

That's why it's good to encourage people to express themselves, no matter if they fit into such ideas or not.

Such encouragement happens within a highly polticized mielieu as well. Teachers must recognized that their encouragments aare as often as not according to their own individual preferences as they are about the individuality of this or that child.
Children after all are very malleable in thes crucial, formative years.

 

[SolomonVII]

It's equally important that boys and girls that don't express their gender conventionally not be ostracized.

I wonder if that is even possible.
Even if the bullying and outright violence can be controlled, birds of a feather flock together.

Even if it is in my nature and in my sense of right and wrong, for exampel, to rush to the defense of the boy with the pink hair from threats, that in no way would imply that I would have enough in common with him to actually start playing dollies with him.

Encourage behaviors that are too far from the norm, and you are in effect setting the stage for dysfunctional behaviors. All the good intentions in the world are not going to change that reality.

And girls clubs tend to be even more exclusive than boys clubs in this regard.


Liberal societies are based on allowing the individual all kinds of freedom, but don't assume that this freedom comes without cost. The price of freedom can often be very dear indeed.

 

[naotmaa]

I wonder if that is even possible.
Even if the bullying and outright violence can be controlled, birds of a feather flock together.

I think it would be possible. In my experience boys who were "feminine" would just hang out with the girls, it was bullying that was an issue for them. So if the bullying and violence could be controlled, it would make a world of difference for these kids.

Even if it is in my nature and in my sense of right and wrong, for exampel, to rush to the defense of the boy with the pink hair from threats, that in no way would imply that I would have enough in common with him to actually start playing dollies with him.

I don't see anything wrong with boys playing with dollies.

Encourage behaviors that are too far from the norm, and you are in effect setting the stage for dysfunctional behaviors. All the good intentions in the world are not going to change that reality.

What sort of behaviors do you mean?

And girls clubs tend to be even more exclusive than boys clubs in this regard

Nah, boys club is more exclusive.

Liberal societies are based on allowing the individual all kinds of freedom, but don't assume that this freedom comes without cost. The price of freedom can often be very dear indeed.

I don't see what the cost would be? Society would evolve and change, as it always has and will continue to do.

 

[burrow_owl]

Even if it is in my nature and in my sense of right and wrong, for exampel, to rush to the defense of the boy with the pink hair from threats, that in no way would imply that I would have enough in common with him to actually start playing dollies with him.

This noxious attitude is precisely why schools have been working to prevent kids from having nonsense gender stereotypes foisted on them. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[*Starlight*]

The evidence is much more than just statitsitics. Science is concentratign as much on the very real and meaningful differences in the physiology of gender than jsut the statistical expressions of behavior.

Free societies are fundamentlayy based on giving the individual free expression. This is not the same thing as acting as if the norms do not exist, or are or secodary importance.
If as scientists of a sort, we assume evolution to be true, then the underlying assumption that we ought to accept is that men and women evolved differently as a result of such differential evolution being somehow important to enhancing the rate of survival.
If the underlying ideology that gender differences are the result of social condition aloen is proven to be scientifically wrong, and it has been, then this in itself is a lesson to us.
If have evolved with different modes of thinking and behavior according to behavior because such differences have been a net benefit, then as intellgient thinking beings, we ought to be playing to these strengths.

Such encouragement happens within a highly polticized mielieu as well. Teachers must recognized that their encouragments aare as often as not according to their own individual preferences as they are about the individuality of this or that child.
Children after all are very malleable in thes crucial, formative years.

Hmm... I'm not a biologist, but I don't think that genders evolve separately. It doesn't sound right to me. A gender isn't a species, it's a trait... like, for example, the color of your hair, just a little more complex. And people with dark hair don't evolve separately than people with light hair.

Anyway, the existence of gender differences when you generalize people doesn't mean that there's a point in generalizing people instead of looking at each person as an individual. Instead of labeling students as "boys" or "girls", they should be treated as individual people, each one with a different and unique personality, talents, abilities... and encourage them to express their individuality. And whether their individuality fits into generalizations or not shouldn't even matter at all. Just forget about generalizations, and look at everyone as an individual person.

 

[Voegelin]

That includes girls being naturally feminine, boys being naturally masculine, boys being naturally feminine, and girls being naturally masculine. However, the latter two categories of people, because of the traditional idea of gender roles in the society, are often discouraged from expressing themselves, and even forced to be someone they are not.

Never a problem in my HS. People graviatated toward different things naturally. Guy in my class went into ballet. His brother, a year older, was a right tackle. You wouldn't even know from looking at them they were brothers. No one thought anything of it (except the tackle was a little large for HS).

There is a reason for the encouraging the physical, aggressive winner takes all sports boys like. Boys go all out, they win or lose and then its over. They don't smash the oppositions head open. Father's teach this. Play rough with the kids, then show them a man knows when enough is enough. A virtue is being taught: how to be magnanimous. It is a masculine virtue. One not taught as much as it should be because of social engineers and their misguided notions of equality.