Childhood Gender Segregation


hermanntrude
#31
it's sad to have to change yourself but it's worthwhile learning how to because sometimes there's no choice.
 
MikeyDB
#32
Sure gender segregation is swell....

Little boys wear blue and little girls wear pink...

If we imagined for a moment that little boys and little girls were human beings first and their genitalia wasn't a defining characteristic of who they were...just imagine...
 
karrie
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

it's sad to have to change yourself but it's worthwhile learning how to because sometimes there's no choice.

My family has encouraged me to pull my son from the school he is currently in, to have him pursue a different form of education due to the difficulties he faced at the beginning of the school year. Most of my family feel he is highly gifted, and bored with the current classroom situation. I've refused however, for exactly the reason you've pointed out.... sometimes we have to learn to be able to fit in. I think that's as important a part of education as the book learning.

But the idea that gender inclusion should apply to all areas of a boys life still seems a little excessive.
 
m_levesque
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

Sure gender segregation is swell....

Little boys wear blue and little girls wear pink...

If we imagined for a moment that little boys and little girls were human beings first and their genitalia wasn't a defining characteristic of who they were...just imagine...


Far too simplistic, and you know it I'm sure.The fact is, boys and girls behave differently and socialize with each other differently. As a boy, the way I beahve with my male friends, the kind of language we used and games we played, would never have been done around the girls, never.
 
hermanntrude
#35
definately excessive. Never meeting a girl for the whole of puberty can do bad things to you.

having said that it was probably a good thing for me to be removed froma situtation in which i didnt fit, although that wasnt really about girls, it was about normal people. I was a frustrated and violent little kid, who honestly thought a good response to name calling was to break a window and throw a chair.
 
Tonington
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by m_levesqueView Post

Far too simplistic, and you know it I'm sure.The fact is, boys and girls behave differently and socialize with each other differently. As a boy, the way I beahve with my male friends, the kind of language we used and games we played, would never have been done around the girls, never.

But that's just it isn't it. Segregating means pushing that type of interaction back, the sooner they learn how to interact with one another the better.

Edit:
I might add that the context of the interactions doesn't matter so much, whethor or not it is in play groups, team settings, study groups at school, etc. These are situations that prepare them for adult situations.
 
karrie
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

But that's just it isn't it. Segregating means pushing that type of interaction back, the sooner they learn how to interact with one another the better.

Edit:
I might add that the context of the interactions doesn't matter so much, whethor or not it is in play groups, team settings, study groups at school, etc. These are situations that prepare them for adult situations.


So, you'd abolish girls' hockey teams, girl guides, etc.? I know I posed th question to you before... because it seems sometimes to be that only boys are the ones subject to having to be completely gender inclusive.
 
hermanntrude
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

because it seems sometimes to be that only boys are the ones subject to having to be completely gender inclusive.

ive noticed that too. I remember at my primary school, there was a girls' playground, where boys were NOT allowed, but nothing for the boys. This is reactionist I think, adults reacting to their own feelings about male and female.
 
Tonington
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

So, you'd abolish girls' hockey teams, girl guides, etc.? I know I posed th question to you before... because it seems sometimes to be that only boys are the ones subject to having to be completely gender inclusive.

I wouldn't abolish activities based on gender. Sports participation is a little different. As the kids age, the pinnacle of their athletic endevours aren't such a narrow gap when compared to younger ages. At older ages the minor sports are more focussed on athletic ability rather than simple participation. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but in the teenage years generally the difference in athletic abilities is more pronounced. It's kind of like the difference between playing in a house league and a rep team where the competition is more fierce.

Often times boys and girls would rather play with the same gender anyways, but that's not always possible depending on the number of participants. I never minded having girls on the teams I played on, my minor baseball team won the league championship 7 years in a row. We all played together from a young age, we all went to school together. It was great, and having girls on the team never bothered anyone.
 
MikeyDB
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by m_levesqueView Post

Far too simplistic, and you know it I'm sure.The fact is, boys and girls behave differently and socialize with each other differently. As a boy, the way I beahve with my male friends, the kind of language we used and games we played, would never have been done around the girls, never.

Is it simplistic because you subscribe to the necessity for women to have to compete in a "man's-world" where differences in genitalia and upper-body design invites a different kind of perception about who a person is and what that person is "best-suited" to aspire to in life?

Were the Calvanists right, and of course the Roman Catholics...women were created for breeding and they should be rightly conditioned to that attitude as early as possible???

Women are "weaker" so the big strong brave 'man' can use his maleness as currency?
 
MikeyDB
#41
What comes first M. Levesque...

A social paradigm that disempowers women to please men... reduce competition and pomulgate a we-they dynamic that permits discrimination...
 
hermanntrude
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

Is it simplistic because you subscribe to the necessity for women to have to compete in a "man's-world" where differences in genitalia and upper-body design invites a different kind of perception about who a person is and what that person is "best-suited" to aspire to in life?

Were the Calvanists right, and of course the Roman Catholics...women were created for breeding and they should be rightly conditioned to that attitude as early as possible???

Women are "weaker" so the big strong brave 'man' can use his maleness as currency?

women, in general ARE weaker than men, in general. But I don't follow the school of the calvanists. But yes there are times when men and women, AND boys and girls, want to be, or even need to be apart. This should be a matter of choice rather than enforcement.
 
MikeyDB
#43
Who created the notion that women needed to "prove" they were competent and worthy of voting?

Who created the glass-ceiling that permits women doing the same work as a man..to be paid less?

Who objectifies women as sexual objects and reaps the harvest of a cosmetics industry devoted to telling women how they should look?

Injustice and inequity on the basis of upper body strength is something practical in the jungle or fifty-thousand years ago...
 
karrie
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

Who created the notion that women needed to "prove" they were competent and worthy of voting?

Who created the glass-ceiling that permits women doing the same work as a man..to be paid less?

Who objectifies women as sexual objects and reaps the harvest of a cosmetics industry devoted to telling women how they should look?

Injustice and inequity on the basis of upper body strength is something practical in the jungle or fifty-thousand years ago...

So, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Tonington. Should girl guides, gyms like Curves, women's spas, and female sports teams be abolished to create greater gender equality?
 
karrie
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

But yes there are times when men and women, AND boys and girls, want to be, or even need to be apart. This should be a matter of choice rather than enforcement.

Perhaps this is why I didn't find this one class/playgroup, where I have to actively enroll and pay for my son to participate, to be objectionable. It is a matter of choice, unlike a segregated school system. I don't find groups like Sparks/GirlGuides/Brownies, or gyms like Curves to be objectionable either, but I do find it odd that women complain so loudly if men have equivalent segregated groups for themselves.
 
hermanntrude
#46
sexism against men isnt sexism, in some people's minds.
 
karrie
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

sexism against men isnt sexism, in some people's minds.

I count myself a humanist.... judging someone on gender based generalizations is wrong, no matter which gender. But, at the same time, I'm rational enough to know that there are differences that come into play between the two genders, and are simply impossible to ignore at times.
 
MikeyDB
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

So, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Tonington. Should girl guides, gyms like Curves, women's spas, and female sports teams be abolished to create greater gender equality?

Life is about choice...not completely and not absolutely certainly but my concern is that we've created a system of prejudice and discrimination based on precepts and arguments that have outlived their usefulness. If the program of "girl-guides" is satisfactory in some particular aspect or with regard to some overarching gender-specificity and that's what you subscribe to on a moral or ethical basis, that is not satisfied by membership in "scouts" or "cubs" or a non-gender specific kind the choice is yours....

If the aspect of a gender specific club or organization proceeds to address gender-role identification, that too is your choice...

I don't like "boxes" and "labels" and it seems to me that if there is good reason for the structure of some social paradigm that perpetuates stereotypical thinking, that system should be held to the greatest scrutiny and assessment.
 
talloola
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

So, you'd abolish girls' hockey teams, girl guides, etc.? I know I posed th question to you before... because it seems sometimes to be that only boys are the ones subject to having to be completely gender inclusive.

I don't believe any girls hockey teams, or any other girls groups should be abolished, and when there
are not enough girls for hockey teams, or other groups etc, they should be allowed to play together,
all of my daughters played ice hockey, rose to a high level, some of the girls who came from other
cities and joined, had been playing with boys, cause there were no girls teams, it was fine with
everyone, and no harm to anyone. When they get older, it is a different situation.
 
talloola
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by mapleleafgirlView Post

okay. im not as old as most of you, but i have an opinion on this. i see a problem from your comment, one allot of us women make...we are trying to tell the men what they need to be now. maybe we should let the men talk for themselves. no way, no matter how much we read about it, will we understand what it is like being a guy and living up to what other guys expect a man to be.only a guy can really know what guys need to be, in my opinion.

I totally agree with you, I'm very tired of women deciding how men should act, and what they
should do to make "us women" happy. Men should feel comfortable within their own skins, and
not have to worry that they are not being "sensitive" enough, etc etc. get the drift?

Maybe women should spend more time growing up and having a stronger grip on their emotions,
so that when men act like men, we can enjoy it, and not "buckle" and "wimper".
We are different, lets stay that way, and enjoy each other "with" our differences.

And, I don't mean that "punching" out some poor woman, to make a point, is acting like a man, so,
lets not go there.
 
talloola
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

ive noticed that too. I remember at my primary school, there was a girls' playground, where boys were NOT allowed, but nothing for the boys. This is reactionist I think, adults reacting to their own feelings about male and female.

My primary school had a playground for each gender, and us girls would not have gone near the boys
playground, and vice versa
 

Similar Threads

59
Childhood TV memories
by Locutus | Oct 1st, 2007
11
Childhood Idol
by Sharidon | Jan 28th, 2005
no new posts