Staff outing - only ladies invited

theoretica

ArcticRoll wrote: »

It's not me who's refusing appropriate help, it's Pinkshoes who runs 'Girls only' clubs.

But it is you who are not wanting to recognise one particular form of appropriate help. Right at the start you say:

ArcticRoll wrote: »

As a gay man I don't always feel comfortable in an environment with all men.

Some people sometimes feel more comfortable in an environment that is all one sex, and a comfortable environment can be a very important thing to provide for learning. And yes, that can be all male too, or mixed for people like you who prefer that.

ArcticRoll

The point is that it was presented as a 'Girls only club' for pupils studying the subject the contributor teachers, which boys could attend if they really want to.

Now if the class was designed to help pupils struggling, presumably any boy who asks to join the 'Girls only club' is going to be someone also struggling with the subject being taught. In which case how can it be justified to issue what is presumably a continual open invite to the extra support to half the class, yet make the other half challenge for the right to access?

It wouldn't be right to offer only 'Boys only club' either, telling girls that if they're struggling they can come if they really want to.

Setting up a club to help only those of one gender who struggle in a subject is the opposite of what i'd think any teacher would be inclined to do. A struggling child is a struggling child. If you think a struggling child without a penis is of more concern than a struggling child with a penis then I'd question your suitability to teach.

Imagine a class of 25. The idea that a girl who is probably the 7th most proficient at that subject in that class has an open invitation to attend additional support classes "because she's a girl", but a boy who is the 8th most proficient does not have access to that help and support unless he challenges his teacher for it "because he's a boy" - is absolutely indefensible.

And you don't even have to get into the realms of discussing how deeply problematic it is instilling in young boys the idea that asking for help is "for the girls" in a time when suicide is the biggest killer of men under 25.

I don't know these children, but I was a boy once so I'd be confident betting a packet of Smarties that there is at least one boy in that class who needs help and is struggling who has found it frustrating, upsetting, alienating, confusing and ultimately disheartening that his teacher doesn't want to offer him additional help because he isn't a girl.

theoretica

ArcticRoll wrote: »

I don't know these children, but I was a boy once so I'd be confident betting a packet of Smarties that there is at least one boy in that class who needs help and is struggling who has found it frustrating, upsetting, alienating, confusing and ultimately disheartening that his teacher doesn't want to offer him additional help because he isn't a girl.

And I was a girl once, in a classroom where about half of the boys were openly of the opinion that girls didn't belong in that class, and certainly not doing better than they were. Not a pleasant environment to learn in, and not an opinion the teacher could rapidly change. I greatly valued the opportunities to work without that constant emotional drain and emphasis on my being a girl.

Malthusian

ArcticRoll wrote: »

And you don't even have to get into the realms of discussing how deeply problematic it is instilling in young boys the idea that asking for help is "for the girls" in a time when suicide is the biggest killer of men under 25.

What would you prefer the biggest killer of men under 25 to be?

shortcrust

Malthusian wrote: »

What would you prefer the biggest killer of men under 25 to be?

What a silly and/or disingenuous question.

We all (I'd hope) would want zero young men to kill themselves. If that happened it would be cause for celebration. The fact that the current second place killer went to no1 wouldn't lessen the fact that fewer young men were dead.

Comms69

theoretica wrote: »

And I was a girl once, in a classroom where about half of the boys were openly of the opinion that girls didn't belong in that class, and certainly not doing better than they were. Not a pleasant environment to learn in, and not an opinion the teacher could rapidly change. I greatly valued the opportunities to work without that constant emotional drain and emphasis on my being a girl.

So half of the boys weren't of that opinion.


Perhaps it wasn't a pleasant environment, but then life isn't especially pleasant.

Malthusian

shortcrust wrote: »

What a silly and/or disingenuous question.

We all (I'd hope) would want zero young men to kill themselves. If that happened it would be cause for celebration. The fact that the current second place killer went to no1 wouldn't lessen the fact that fewer young men were dead.

So why is it not cause for celebration when deaths from war, crime, disease and infant mortality reduce to the point that suicide rises to number 1?

Comms69

Malthusian wrote: »

So why is it not cause for celebration when deaths from war, crime, disease and infant mortality reduce to the point that suicide rises to number 1?

I suppose the issue is that death by natural causes / accident would be the more palatable option than 80+ men a week committing suicide in this fairly small nation.


Why are so many men choosing to end their lives so consistently.


I mean the answer is no doubt incredibly complicated and I wouldn't want to narrow it down to one cause; but a significant contribution must be the way society treats men and expects men to behave.

phillw

Malthusian wrote: »

What would you prefer the biggest killer of men under 25 to be?

Earth quakes. They happen very rarely, so the number would be low and there should be a very low gender bias.

When there is a requirement for "girls only" activities, then they should be balanced with "boys only" activities. However a works night out is a poor excuse as you are trying to create a good working environment, but you're instantly creating a division between men and women. Even if you can argue it legally, it is guaranteed to create some resentment & is therefore a waste of time and money.

If the invite is open to every female employee then it's a work thing. Even if the manager is inviting specific girls as friends and not as a work thing, then it's clearly favouritism.

I would certainly be worried if a teacher was holding girls only sessions. I accept that people will have experience of boys disrupting classes, but then it should be a "no disruptive pupil" activity. As assuming that girls are never disruptive and boys always are is sexist (and in my experience completely and utterly wrong).

Comms69 wrote: »

I mean the answer is no doubt incredibly complicated and I wouldn't want to narrow it down to one cause; but a significant contribution must be the way society treats men and expects men to behave.

If we accept that men and women are inherently equal and the only thing stopping women from succeeding is society then higher male suicide has to be how society treats men. That has far reaching consequences though, because that also means that the reason more men are in prison is because of how society treats those men.

Discriminating against men for traits they have that women don't, when you can't legally discriminate against women for the same reason is one of those things that society does.

System

ArcticRoll wrote: »

Don't girls regularly out perform boys in GCSEs?

That's right, girls do much better in a structured environment like a school, whereas boys prefer a more independent approach. Girls do better at GCSE, whereas boys do better at A-levels and Uni.