Schools 'too feminine for boys'

[nitrox]

steven W.

it's just a conventional way of acting, it's not actually trying to do a stupid thing that makes you seem dumb to people. Everyone fights for it in their own way, women do it as much as men, girls/boys same thing. It's the idea of bonding or getting others to accept, appreciate, or even envy what you do.

And by writing something in the board, you're actually doing what you claim not to be. The best way to win an argument or fight is never to entre one.

Then why am I posting, eh, to make a bit of truth out of this. and a bit easier to understand. It's 100,000 of years of evolution that we're not going to stop just by saying no to it. and besides... sometimes it's even fun.

[AMM]

begin{rant}

No disrespect intended to RichardN, but when I saw this article (the initial post on this thread),
so many of my BS detectors went off, I didn't know where to start.

Since most of my complaints aren't relevant to skirts-for-men, I won't go into too much detail,
but I'll just list them, and then tie it into skirts at the end.

1. "boys are this, girls are that" arguments are usually bogus. Even when there is a correlation
between gender and any social issue, anything that can be said about males will apply
to quite a few females, and vice versa. And sometimes there isn't really any correlation, it's
just BS -- stereotypes, assumptions, bad "science", etc.

2. Note that here in the USA, the conventional wisdom about boys' vs. girls' learning styles
is different: here, it's the boys that are supposed to love theoretical stuff, and the girls
that want a connection to the real world. I conclude: both are oversimplified to the point of BS.
(Or maybe they are just BS from start to finish.)

3. Some of the suggestions are great -- more outdoor time, for example. But it isn't really a gender
thing -- girls could use the outside time, too. (One of my pet peeves -- elimination of opportunities
for physical activity during the school day, then punishing kids for not being able to sit still.)



4. Finally, some skirt relevance: as an outgrowth of my skirt-wearing, I'm coming more and more to
reflexively say "BS alert!" whenever I hear the words "masculine" or "feminine."

Why are skirts "feminine"? And baggy pants "masculine"?
Why is passivity "feminine"? And brutality "masculine"?

And why does every human activity have to be designated either
"masculine" or "feminine"?

And why does society spend so much effort training boys to be "masculine"
and girls to be "feminine", and in punishing those who step across the line
in anything? (Cf. "You have to be taught", from "South Pacific")

Anybody notice how what is "masculine" and "feminine" seems to change over time,
and vary from one culture -- and subculture -- to another?

5. Lastly, on a personal note: I've been through school myself, and am now watching
my two boys trying to survive the educational system. I've come to the conclusion
that learning is a miracle, that most kids learn more in spite of anything educators
do than because of it, and that almost all that is written about education is totally
worthless as far as really helping kids to learn anything.

Why is it that no one seems to consider the simplest -- but hardest -- approach:
get good, caring teachers, and give them the time and space to actually spend
with the kids?

-- AMM

[iain]

as a parent, I can say that boys are very different from girls. there is an overlap: some women are more masculine than some men; some men are more feminine than some men.

but the very fact that we regard them as exceptions means that they must be exceptions from something. and that something is the general mentality native to a particular gender.

fashion has much less to do with it because it changes over time; it's purely habitual when a skirt is seen as "feminine". this is habitual by association only. people like to classify and some classifications are just handy for them to maintain their world view.

and any man who has dated two women at the same time will be aware that they have a level of intuition which is bordering on the uncanny. both will ring at the same moment, decide to appear at the same moment, make claims on your time for the same exact period, and so on!

different!

[AMM]

as a parent, I can say that boys are very different from girls. there is an overlap: ...

I would agree that there are differences -- I remember when my sons were in nursery school, there were obvious differences between groups of girls and groups of boys.

But the differences are more subtile than the usual stereotypes that get thrown around in the media or traded about in casual conversation.

And a lot of the differences are cultural, not innate. One of the contributions of cultural anthropology is to give some idea of how variable "male" and "female" traits really are.


My objection is that when gender differences are discussed in the popular media -- and in this respect, the "highbrow" media (Times of London, BBC, NPR, New York Times, etc.) are no better than the "lowbrow" (Fox media, the Sun, etc.) -- it is (almost) always a mish-mash of popular prejudices, cultural myopia, and personal hobby-horses to the point of being worthless.

Even the professional/academic press is pretty poor in this area.

There are some people who have done good work in the area of sex differences, but understanding it requires that the reader work to put aside all that (s)he has grown up seeing as what is "natural", and hardly any one wants to bother. So the good work is ignored, and ignorance drives out wisdom.


Education is another field where almost all the "studies" and supposed knowledge is worthless.


It's interesting that gender and education are both areas where preconceived ideas generally trump clear thinking. These are also areas which could be called "political": beliefs about gender differences tend to end up deciding which gender should be boss, and education is essentially the process of controlling what people grow up believing (and who gets the plum jobs and who is stuck with the scut work)

Obligatory skirt content: note that, in the USA, at least, "wearing the pants" in a relationship means being the boss, while when writers want to protray a man as being weak and passive, they depict him wearing a skirt or dress (and an apron) So when we men wear skirts, and yet are not weak and passive, we're challenging the power structure!!! (Insert fist in the air.) Or at least confusing the heck out of it.



-- AMM

[crfriend]

IThere are some people who have done good work in the area of sex differences, but understanding it requires that the reader work to put aside all that (s)he has grown up seeing as what is "natural", and hardly any one wants to bother. So the good work is ignored, and ignorance drives out wisdom.

I suspect the reason for this is that unless an individual is willing (and able) to let go of the stereotypes, the entire notion of gender is a really scary one; it's a flat rock that everyone is afraid of because they don't know what may lurk underneath -- hence, nobody has the nerve to flip it over to take a good hard look. I suspect that's true pretty much in all cultures and societies, but more so in the less- developed and enlightened ones. Superstition, in most cases, has the power to banish science and rational thought because superstition is comfortable and well known; looking at things through the lens of science can be really terrifying because you don't know where it will lead, or how the new revelations will challenge long held "truths".

So, it's perfectly understandable why some of these works go unappreciated -- they make people uncomfortable. They might find demons lurking in their own psyches that they do not want to (or cannot) deal with. But, a certain amount of discomfort must be endured for perceptions to change, and that's where we (as men in skirts) are right now -- in that uncomfortable area that gives some the willies and outright frightens (sometimes to the point of physical violence) others,

Obligatory skirt content: note that, in the USA, at least, "wearing the pants" in a relationship means being the boss, while when writers want to protray a man as being weak and passive, they depict him wearing a skirt or dress (and an apron) So when we men wear skirts, and yet are not weak and passive, we're challenging the power structure!!! (Insert fist in the air.) Or at least confusing the heck out of it.

The comment of "Now we know who wears the pants in the family" is universally levelled against men and is really shockingly ignorant and insulting; hopefully it'll become the 21st century's "N word". I'm the same bloke when wearing a skirt as I am when I'm wearing tr*users (thanks to the chap who started "spatting out the oh" to make it look like a "naughty word") -- well, almost the same; I'm slightly more aware of my surroundings and of my own movement when I'm skirted than otherwise, which isn't really a bad thing! Other than that sense of heightened awareness, I am just as assertive, just as passionate, just as forcible, and just as loving when I'm wearing a skirt as when I'm wearing pants -- the garment does not "make the man".

Whether we're "challenging the power structure" in a meaningful way has yet to be seen -- we'll hopefully get a glimpse of some of that through watching Topsy's good hard shove at his employer's dark-ages policy. As far as "confusing the heck out of it", I can't agree more -- and I completely believe that it's long overdue to rattle a few cages.

[RichardN]

...when I saw this article (the initial post on this thread), so many of my BS detectors went off, I didn't know where to start.

It's frightening how strong these stereotypes are. The vast majority of people (not on this board!) follow the crowd and live by stereotypes. Perhaps it's largely based on people's need to belong. Someone who has the same views and attitudes as their neighbours and work colleagues will get on with them. But this can drag those views and attitudes down to a fairly basic level, polarized into stereotypes.

For example, many parents will realize that in boys there is a broad range of behaviours and the same in girls, but those parents will still buy the stereotyped toys and clothing for their children -- guns for the boys and dolls for the girls. These stereotypes aren't quite fixed because it's quite OK for a girl to be a tomboy, but for a boy to be a 'janegirl' is not permitted!

Perhaps the way many people live by stereotypes grows out of childhood. Firstly, their parents 'indoctrinate' them into the stereotypes so the children will grow up to be fully functioning in society (in their view). And secondly, as the children grow up among their peers, especially as teenagers, they have to conform to the attitudes and behaviours of their peers to be accepted by them. Very few are happy to be outside of the group!

This carries over into the world of work. While at work we all have to fit in (to a large degree) to the attitudes and behaviours of our colleagues and especially the boss. If we don't we won't progress or get decent pay reviews. (I know it's not meant to be like this in large companies, but who recommends for promotion? - your boss does.)

So at work most people do and say what others want to see and hear. With politicians (and the educator in the BBC article) it is even more extreme - they say and do what will get them most support and greatest prominence, and therefore the most power. Often they don't believe in the position they are taking but for them it is a means to an end.

But there are still some people who can see things for themselves - and come to very different conclusions from the crowd.

That's why this board is so good!

Richard

[nitrox]

kind of feels like beating a dead horse...


One, playing with gender designated toys is stereotyped, and something that just isn't looked at enough. Boys are given projects to do like putting things together and using spacial imagry and improving upon it. Girls are given dolls which do nothing except secure a sense of fashion and colour variation for them.

It's almost as if the boys and girls are taught who should be the best and make money vs. who should stay home and pop kids out of their legs. Rough way to say it. If you would ask a parent why they would do this, they'll probably give you a strange look and tell you that they don't know. Because they don't.

They're doing something because everyone else does it and not thinking why others do it. Again one of my engineering friends "that's just so stupid, why would anyone just do it because, and not know or have a reason for it"..

It's worse in the poorer communities because you have less education and much more ignorance that doesn't want to and can't change. You go into them and see people doing the gender roles and happy with them. The more wealthy ones will have less of it but some will still be there. Education really does change people mostly for the better, not money. If you're educated, you're taught to think critically. That means questioning what you see,hear, taste, smell, and think.

[iain]

playing with dolls is actually a very social interaction--my little girl plays with them, puts them to bed, tells them stories, makes a nice house for them, and so on. my son has only ever been interested in the action-aspect of them. fighting, charging, flying in space ships. I watched this from day one.

there is no getting away from it: generally girls are more social-based and therefore their games are much more powerful socially, for better or worse. young girls introduced to each other in a room play together but that play is just a backdrop for them to ask questions about each other, where they're from, what their house is like, etc. young boys in the same situation focus on the game and establish rules like which car is the fastest, which soldiers have the most powers and where the base camp is and so on.

with teenagers, the other thing which you see easily is that girls are socially far more vicious than boys. boys can be pugilistic and aggressive, but girls will do terrible things to undermine another girl's social standing. in one case, I remember some girls invited an unpopular girl to join their gang, but as a condition, she had to disown all her friends, which she did. then after two weeks the girls rejected her (as planned), leaving her totally alone.

in another case, the girls encouraged an unpopular girl to have a party, and then made certain absolutely nobody turned up. I saw for myself via my stepdaughter how cruel the girls can be to their fellow female peers; the boys can be aggressive but have nowhere near the subtlety to achieve the devastating cruelty of the girls.

I worked in an office with two women once and I never saw such an underhanded rivalry: while outwardly supportive, they were constantly trying to undermine the other's confidence and establish dominance by arriving one minute later than the other (eventually they were both getting onto 20 minutes late each!). in The Apprentice, with Alan Sugar, here in the UK, the first 5 to be sacked were all women. when it was asked by an indignant female why Sugar was so sexist, they played the tapes: the women's group all tried to undermine and rebel. so they lost more frequently.

the guys in the guys' team just got on with it, even if they resented other guys: they knew they had to win as a team. so when they played these tapes, the women who had accused Sugar of being sexist had to just sit down again. it was actually embarrassing: the catty comments behind the backs, the snide looks, and the mocking pseudo-co-operation and the work-to-rule of women who wanted to appear faultless but who did not want to cede even an inch of authority to the detested "other woman".. it was like high school! the team was constantly a shambles because nobody wanted to help anyone else for fear of losing their own dominance.

my lawyer confirmed that guys have a difficult time separating emotionally from women after marriage. whereas the women are capable of making a decision quickly and then further, if it suits them, completely destroy the man: taking the money, the children, the house, whatever they want. even if the man is destroyed in the process: it's simply not their concern. yes, there are men with these qualities, but there is a reason for the expression "Hell hath no fury like a woman spurned".

even in this fashion subject: when women wanted to wear pants, they just up and did it. the ones who didn't want to wear pants also made life miserable for those who did, until they saw the benefit to themselves.

sorry guys, there is a big difference and it's as well to be aware of it!

[Since1982]

On stereotyping people in general, over at another site a lot of us are members of, IMFF, there was a very offensive post last week by a new member there. Here it is in it's entirety>>

A continuation: Here's some fashion dont's. (in this space was a picture of Johnh in a full skirt, petticoat and wig)

It's just wrong. sick and wrong. -------------------------------- (In this space was a picture of a man wearing a red T-shirt, denim skirt and semi high heeled shoes)


Don't wear womens shoes, it sends out the wrong idea.

---------------------------------------
(in this space was a picture of a man wearing a skirt and t-shirt, wearing a white beard and gray hair)



Even the elderly are cottoning onto Fashion Freedom, so you as a young person should have no problems.

Well, needless to say, I responded with this..>>

I'm a little upset with your stereotypes of people. The name of this forum is International Fashion FREEDOM in case you didn't notice. Just because a person doesn't fit into YOUR idea of what's right or healthy doesn't mean they are "wrong or sick". Also, just because someone has white or gray hair that doesn't automatically make them "elderly". Maybe you are of the idea that you are in some ways superior to other people. Trust me, you're not. If a person wants to wear long painted nails, hi heeled shoes, lipstick, full makeup, look or try to pass as a woman, wear a poodle skirt with a petticoat under it, THAT all is included in FASHION FREEDOM. You don't HAVE to wear these things, you don't have to even LIKE these things. What you DO have to do is either ignore them or keep your opinions of what's "wrong or sick" to yourself.

I don't have long nails, wear high heeled shoes, wear any makeup or own a poodle skirt, but that does not mean I don't fully support other's rights to do so. You need to rethink what you say about others on this forum. Skip
------------------------------------------

It's unfortunate some people who "think" they are becoming more free are actually putting themselves in a box. I've not named the author of that post, if you want to know who it is, go to IMFF and look under "Social Aspects of Skirt Wearing" Mine's the last post.

[RichardN]

Skip, I'm pleased you explained life to him. It's probably the first time he has been shown that there is a different way -- that he doesn't have to be putting others down to be accepted as one of the group.

Richard

[RichardN]

Iain, You're absolutely right, many women are experts at destroying each other, whether at work or within a social group. But men do it too, using different methods. The most common method at work is back-stabbing - doing each other down to those the next grade or two up, driving towards a consensus that so-and-so should go or be moved elsewhere.

This ability or trait, "mankind's inhumanity to man" (both genders included), is fundamentally centred on self. Always putting one's own interests first and taking advantage of others instead of supporting them - in other words selfish ambition and greed.

Politicians are often prime examples of this (think UK and US), and also those driven to build up business empires. But thankfully not everyone is like this; our modern society is not totally poisoned. There are perfectly pleasant, helpful and generous men and women out there who are pleased to help and support others when they themselves gain no benefit. Some even go out of their way to help total strangers.

My impression here at the Café is that we are more from the latter group than the former.

Richard

[skirttron]

On the academic side - yes, by all means be more challenging. I am sure boys do get bored by plodding continuous assessment instead of exciting exams - maybe girls do too. On the physical side, I don't think there's a danger of going back to the way we were before. As someone who was forced to play football in ice and snow, and responded by asking to be put in goal and dodging when the ball came my way, I can vouch for the fact that enforced aggressive sport does little good.

[Since1982]

I don't think that's just a mankind thing, I think it's more a "mammal" thing. Insects often gladly die for the colony. Mammals never do. Even a female lion in the Kalahari desert, if she gets tooo hungry will eat her kittens, so will the male lion. In fact the male lions try to kill all the kittens to keep the male kittens from growing into competition. Very competitive us mammals are.

Oh by the way, that picture avatar I'm using is from a site on the internet that said that picture is what William Wallace and his sword "might" have looked like had he lived. LOL Close up that person in the picture has graying hair and a pot belly.

[Departed Member]

Oh by the way, that picture avatar I'm using is from a site on the internet that said that picture is what William Wallace and his sword "might" have looked like had he lived. LOL Close up that person in the picture has graying hair and a pot belly.

Well, the sword might look OK, but William Wallace wearin' a Kilt? - I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!

[Topsy]

For example, many parents will realize that in boys there is a broad range of behaviours and the same in girls, but those parents will still buy the stereotyped toys and clothing for their children -- guns for the boys and dolls for the girls. These stereotypes aren't quite fixed because it's quite OK for a girl to be a tomboy, but for a boy to be a 'janegirl' is not permitted!

Richard is correct - to a point.

I am the father of a 5 year old girl and an 8 year old boy. Between my wife and my childrens' friends and their school kin there is considerable peer pressure for them to comply with the existing stereotyping roles.

My boy has twice so far complained about the summer heat and his trousers (no shorts!) and remarked on his sisters dress or skirt. He is very much a boy who plays football and engages with the other boys. He has no current wish to don a skirt.

All in all, I have to let him determine his own path. Meanwhile my daughter has the freedom to do almost as she wishes