Staff outing - only ladies invited

esj13

ArcticRoll wrote: »

I've changed some of the details for fear of the story being recognised but I'm a Civil Servant.

The office manager sent an email out this week, to all members of staff:

"We are arranging an office meal on 1st June, just for the ladies. Men feel free to make your own arrangements for your own outing"

Which kind of irked me a bit. I didn't see it as necessary to exclude men. There was no particular reason given aside, presumably preference of not having men there. Given that it was sent as an all-office email I thought that wasn't really on. If it was a private event arranged privately by friends at work who all happened to be women it would be one thing. But this seemed a bit discriminatory.

So I responded back asking why the event was only for women and stating my objection and belief that the event should be opened up to everyone and it was no more acceptable for a manager to say "just for the ladies" as it would be "just for the whites" or "just for the heterosexuals". The manager was quite obstinate on this until today when suddenly an email went round announcing the whole event was cancelled.

Okay it's not the worst example of discrimination in the world but it still makes me feel kinda crap. As a gay man I don't always feel comfortable in an environment with all men. There might also be trans people in the office whose trans status is not declared to management who would be put out by that.

To be honest I'm kind of peeved that the response was the cancel the event rather than open it up to everyone. It wasn't a ladies specific event going on, it's just a meal at a mixed-gender establishment but the manager evidently preferred only women to be there.

Now I'm kind of concerned she'll have it in for me going forward.

You were very right to challenge this.
Having a "Ladies night" is fine, but why do it via company email and include men in said email?
Keep copies of the emails if you're worried that she may have it in for you and cover your back. I've worked with malicious managers before and they soon back off when they know you're vigilant. They like easy prey.

Dean000000

ViolaLass wrote: »

No need to call me 'toots'. I'm not your inferior.

You sound rather cross.

Yes, stereotypically they refuse to learn this skills

Likewise, if we are debunking myths, I was not socialised to ‘have more agreession’ quite the very opposite

So merely wanted to paint a picture on how silly your statement was......which it was.

Unless of course you retract and amend

Dean000000

Actually there is so much wrong with that post I can’t even start.....

*faints*

Abbafan1972

She obviously realised that she was in the wrong by cancelling it.

I am all for Ladies or men only events but it was unfair just to arrange a general meal for the ladies and tell the men they can organise their own "do".

Bang out of order imo.

ViolaLass

Dean000000 wrote: »

Yes, stereotypically they refuse to learn this skills

Likewise, if we are debunking myths, I was not socialised to ‘have more agreession’ quite the very opposite

So merely wanted to paint a picture on how silly your statement was......which it was.

Unless of course you retract and amend

No, I won't retract what I've said.

I was never talking about you specifically (I know little about you and your upbringing) but about men and society generally. I stand by what I have written.

miriamac

Les79 wrote: »

I've had my say. I've also been uncharacteristally open about my own experience of "education". Ultimately, nobody cares (or ever will) about MY experience and that is something I have had to accept. I'll take that at face value, even though it comes across as a tad emotionally manipulative. I care about your experience and I care about pinkshoes' experience (and the experiences of many others who haven't posted here. Do you care about pinkshoes' experiences? Because that really didn't come across

I'm the !!!!!!!! irrespective of what I say.

In this instance, it's because of the way you said it. Only you know if that is part of a pattern of behaviour in real life.

...
But I tell you what, I AM VERY THANKFUL "that no child at all is in a classrom where [I am a] teacher"

Why? Because its a craphole! I get paid more money, for less hassle (and no bullying), by doing my current job. So I happily accept your thanks

I'm glad that you feel you are in a better place and are thankful for yourself.

Comms69

ViolaLass wrote: »

People are different, men and women are equal in many ways (sure, the fastest marathon might have been run by a man but that's hardly an average person, is it? There's a huge overlap most of the time). Yes there is, define equal...

Men are socialised to 'have more aggression' i.e. to show their emotions that way. When?

And no, it's not masculine traits that are being labelled toxic. It's some traits being labelled as 'toxic masculinity' which is not the same thing. These traits are not bad because they are stereotypically male, they are bad in the first place and also stereotypically male. Yes it is, traits typically found in men are far too often labelled toxic. There is nothing wrong with aggression just FYI

Boys being taught that the only acceptable emotion to express is aggression is an example of toxic masculinity.

Nonsense; toxic malculinit doesn’t exist. The nonsense label does though

miriamac

Les79 wrote: »

I despise it when people quote posts like that. I feel it is deliberate so as to discourage responses.

To put your post in a more accessible format:

You are biased here towards pinkshoes. I've given you some REAL stuff which is at the very least on par with what pinkshoes has said, yet I get the accusation of being "emotionally manipulative".

Between you and me, that's why AS A MALE I keep my trap shut most of the time. I don't have #MeToo campaigns and all that rubbish. Nobody cares about males



I DO care about pinkshoes' input, and in fact I gave them a few nods in respect to that in previous posts (something which goes by the wayside with people like you). This whole thread evolved because pinkshoes specifically mentioned helping GIRLS ONLY during lunchtime.



Meh, you're right to be fair


Imagine telling a 60ish year old that they are wrong when they refuse to help some kid with a disability and you give them a bit of lip in the "mentoring" session. I have a (lack of) way of saying things


Wouldn't have it any other way you know.... Let it be a pattern, I don't give a rat's !!! because I always land on my feet. Teaching college students or shovelling horse !!!!!, I am actually not bothered as long as I can just get on with it

I'm not disagreeing with you "AS A MALE". I'm disagreeing with you as one human being to another. You're the one who's playing the gender card.

You're also the one who turned your own question of "won't you think of your son?" into "I'm alright, Jack".

And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the things going on in your posts. Including all the text effects and the accusations that I'm 'biased towards pinkshoes'. [Shrug]

ArcticRoll

wBut what happens in the class when boys start to struggle? Education is a journey and classroom learning is somewhat linear in that you might be okay with what's taught in September or October but in November and December you've started to fall behind.

Although I think what's concerned me more is that the idea that on the face of it we have a teacher that doesn't care to identify where there lies an educational need for her male students.

Presumably because the class is for girls who struggle, girls who struggle are invited along. Their needs are identified by the teacher who then suggests to them they'd benefit from additional support. Whereas the boy in the class who is struggling will not be invited along, instead he has to request permission to join.

What do you say to that boy who has already been disadvantaged by the fact that his teacher doesn't care to identify the need for additional support because he has a penis?

"Sorry, the girls will be intimidated if you go so you'll have to fend for yourself"

or

"You have started to fall behind but looking at the macro-data at a national level you're part of the gender that is doing better at this subject so whilst I could help you, I won't."

or

do you treat the kid like a nuisance for having asked in the first place, reiterate the fact he'll be teased by his friends by going to a 'girls only' club and only acquiesce if he persists but refuse to change the name from 'girls only club' just so he knows how super unwelcome he is?

Because that last scenario seems to be the option that's been chosen. I find it genuinely sad that someone who has chosen to become an educator cannot see anything wrong in that. Not only does pinkshoes effectively oblige the boys in their class to have to identify their own educational need by making them effectively grovel for additional support, she seems entirely ignorant to how alienating and unwelcoming it is to those boys who even get to that stage by refusing to call it anything other than 'girls only club' even when boys attend.

What message do you think it sends to the boy who feels he is struggling but doesn't want to go to something called the 'girls only club' and has a teacher that evidently doesn't care to identify the need for additional support, quite apart from an inclination to provide it, other than: "I don't matter"

I'm sorry but a teacher should not be that ignorant about children and the realities of their lives at school-age to think that a pupil will feel anything other than like absolute garbage having to jump through those hoops just because they have the audacity to realise that they're struggling at a subject.


What about that boy who is already teased in the playground for not liking football and being a bit girly? You really think for a second if he was struggling with the subject you teach that he'd consider going to something called 'girls only club'?

So where does he go?

And before then answer is "That child doesn't exist", with all due respect given what I've read so far I'd be amazed if you would even care to identify him if he did.

theoretica

ArcticRoll wrote: »

Presumably because the class is for girls who struggle, girls who struggle are invited along. Their needs are identified by the teacher who then suggests to them they'd benefit from additional support. Whereas the boy in the class who is struggling will not be invited along, instead he has to request permission to join.

Have you missed that there is another session immediately open to everyone? So it is not that the additional support is not offered and available, just that it is offered on a different day or place. Not identical provision, but not wildly different either.