BBC's 'No More Girls and Boys' - trying to gender neutralise a class of primary school children.
I want to smash the f**king screen in.
Important Educational Experiment or Social Engineering?
Quote: Will Cam @ 16th August 2017, 9:53 PMBBC's 'No More Girls and Boys' - trying to gender neutralise a class of primary school children.
I want to smash the f**king screen in.
I didn't see it but it does sound like something that would make angry enough to want to crush a grape. I've been reading far too many stories recently about parents who are raising their child in a gender neutral way and will dress them in male and female clothes. I think this is a step too far and in these cases the child needs to give the final word on what they want. If they are too young to do that then they are too young for the parents to decide for them.
The paradox is that I can also see some relevance as clothes are just fabric and too mundane to be of importance and being a boy or girl is equally unimportant so why shouldn't that be taught in schools but it's also an important distinction that is so obvious it doesn't need overstating. It's the parents who say outlandish statements like they will send their boy to school in a skirt when it's a newborn and school is several years away that pisses me off.
Quote: Will Cam @ 16th August 2017, 9:53 PMBBC's 'No More Girls and Boys' - trying to gender neutralise a class of primary school children.
I want to smash the f**king screen in.
Good man. Maybe you can pop in and smash mine in for me, as I'm fed up of getting up to do it.
I had it on for about two mins but because I missed the beginning I turned over like I do. I will iplayer it so I can get steamed up later. I saw him telling the teacher off for saying luv to girls and mate to boys. The guy really seemed to believe in his nonsense idea. He can't be a social scientist because he'd know from many studies that these experiments never work. But then I don't yet know what he's hoping to do - what does he want to call girls and boys instead? Does he want them to grow up to be nonmen and nonwomen? Does he want girls to grow up to go down mines and dig roads up and men to be on the phone all day in comfy swivel chairs while eating chocolate sandwiches for a living. Actually I wouldn't mind that. Hmm...
The world has gone f**king mad! I blame social
media and 24 hour news.
I think you're right Will, social media has a bearing.
This program is trolling Psychologists. There is very credible research on gender, but this has absolutely nothing to do with that. It looks more to do with tabloid suppositions and social media. It makes a mockery of the credible work that has been done.
Its a bit like researching if golden track suits make you abuse over 500 children whilst also stopping the Yew Tree operation. Which incidentally has been the approach on the Westminster investigation (implicating a number of MPs). But how do you counter this when even the President of America get away with so much false news and people quote Wikkipedia so much ? Lets be honest, we are talking about this TV program, no mention of Piaget, the leading light in child psychology. So social media wins again. >_<
[quote name="Alfred J Kipper" post="1178320" date="17th August 2017, 9:13 AM"Does he want girls to grow up to go down mines and dig roads up and men to be on the phone all day in comfy swivel chairs while eating chocolate sandwiches for a living. Actually I wouldn't mind that. Hmm...[/quote]
Really? So your suggesting job inequality is the way it is and that's just the way it should be. Men do manly jobs and women do woman's work? What is this the 1950s?
I get that you're half jokingly saying women are spoiled and lazy and men do all the hard work and wouldn't it be nice to trade. I wish your statement was funny enough for me to believe you're fully joking and that you're not sexist, and that you're aware how many women worldwide have difficult and laborious jobs, and equally how many men have cushy office jobs. I realise the percentages are skewed toward one gender or the other in many professions but I for one wish that wasn't the case. I'd be very happy to see a higher percentage of women in scientist jobs, as professors, as judges, as doctors, as engineers, police officers, builders, architects, mechanics, etc. And sure even miners. Why not?
What do you do out of curiosity?
This thread is certainly one for me to avoid in future I think! Unless I want to get a stomach ulcer.
I haven't seen the show you're talking about. It may well have been a right load of old rubbish. But generally I do hear a lot of overblown scaremongering and overreaction to this subject. Essentially, there is no such thing as boy's clothes and girl's clothes, boy's toys and girl's toys. It's all a social construct which is actually really boring. And people who raise their kids to think that boys will literally explode in a firey ball if they touch something pink make me want to bash their stupid, limiting faces in.
If a girl genuinely loves pink and fairies then that's fine, if she loves playing in the dirt then that's fine too. Same with boys. Just let kids be happy and unselfconscious for f**k's sake.
Quote: zooo @ 24th September 2017, 4:23 PMIf a girl genuinely loves pink and fairies then that's fine, if she loves playing in the dirt then that's fine too. Same with boys. Just let kids be happy and unselfconscious for f**k's sake.
Exactly, let them be happy and unselfconscious by not trying to gender neutralise them with nonsense like this:
Aw, that is quite sweet though. But probably bollocks anyway, seeing as it's in the daily mail.
In my opinion, children will grow up to be whatever they are in spite of whether they are treat as boys, girls or neutral.
So referring to them as neutral gender does not matter at all. They will be what they will be
The trouble is, there is too much focus on children who want to change gender.
They are only a tiny percentage of children but with all the coverage it seems much bigger
I have young grandchildren and if one of the boys wanted to wear dresses I'd probably laugh.
I wouldn't interfere though.
Would you laugh at girls wearing trousers? No. But you probably would have decades ago. It's just a matter of time before it's ordinary, so what's the big deal.
Women wear trousers partly to get ahead in their male dominated career where trousers are worn. They also wear leggings for all sorts of reasons, including practicability and comfort. Same women also wear skirts and dresses when they want, they aren't very practical, but they are pretty and accentuate their femininity. In hot weather they have a practical use. In short, women have the full set of options open to them, so why moan?
There is no practical reason other than as a shade in hot weather for men to wear dresses. The majority of men probably don't want to accentuate their femininity, so trousers or shorts are the norm. Hundreds of years of clothes evolution support the fact that trousers will be around a very long time yet, however much that upsets some people. It's far less social construct than you and that idiot doctor who should be struck off think, it's far more about practicality. Have you tried digging a trench in a dress?
Who on earth has suggested that trousers are upsetting anyone, or that women are moaning about being able to wear what they want?
As usual, you seem to be arguing with the imaginary voices in your head.
Quote: zooo @ 24th September 2017, 4:23 PMThis thread is certainly one for me to avoid in future I think! Unless I want to get a stomach ulcer.
It seemed to be upsetting your tum tum.
Quote: zooo @ 24th September 2017, 4:23 PMThis thread is certainly one for me to avoid in future I think! Unless I want to get a stomach ulcer.
You should be OK zooo, psychological stress probably has no role in the development of ulcers; most ulcers are caused by an infection by Helicobacter pylori bacteria (H. pylori), and can be treated in about two weeks with antibiotics.
https://www.livescience.com/34799-stomach-peptic-gastric-ulcers.html