Jump to content

Recommended Posts

oimissus Wrote:


>

> D'you know what worries me more, as a mother of a

> girl? Things like a recent thread on Mumsnet,

> where, because a teacher failed to discipline some

> jeering boys properly, girls who had been doing

> handstands in the playground and thus their

> knickers were briefly on show were told to go

> inside and put shorts on under their frocks. That

> makes my blood boil. Primary-aged girls being

> taught that it's up to them to modify their

> clothing and/or behaviour because boys can't be

> expected to. And the number of women on that

> thread who supported this made me even angrier.

> Because it's only a hop, skip and a jump to that

> NHS poster doing the rounds suggesting that if a

> drunk woman is raped, it's her fault for being

> drunk.

>


I agree 100% with you Oimissus, but you know the first thing that struck me about your story?


Why are primary girls required to wear skirts in the first place? Why cant they get to wear trousers if they so chose? Clothing that would allow them stand on their hands all day without showing their pants? Clothing that would protect their knees from scuffs and scratches..clothing that is superior to active play?


Call me a soft hearted idealist...you wont be the first...but I'd like a system for my girl to be a child first and foremost...she has a lifetime of restrictions of what constitutes acceptable/desirable/appropriate female behaviour ahead of her..alas.


I'm just trying to call foul on what I see as anachronistic, often unconscious, preconceptions of what is good gendered behaviour.


And while I think we should all be free to choose what we want to do as adults, we owe our children a more careful and considered assessment of the junk we push down their throats in the guise of 'play' and 'entertainment'.. looking at you Disney toy stores. Disney have got better but for some reason seem to revert to their old ways if the pressure isnt kept up (so underscoring the importance of the OP's campaign), see the following regarding their back tracking on the sexualisation of Merida: http://jezebel.com/disney-exec-defends-brave-princess-meridas-makeover-508465393


Also, to get back to the OP, negative racial stereotyping is an issue in Disney's products http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jan/16/abigail-disney-meryl-streep-racism-sexism and we also need to resolve the comparative abscence of black and asian children in children's books.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/04/first-black-childrens-laureate-malorie-blackman

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • And from what I remember, she eventually cut the tea shop for a similar  reason to chandelier.  Chariot style buggies
    • Oh yes, it could have been about there, I can't remember exactly. At one point there seemed to be a load of pizza places opening on NCR. I vaguely remember the one we used to use was put out of business by another one which opened. Wasn't Grace and Favour's food offering more of a tea shop at the back of the actual shop? If memory serves the owner, whose name escapes me now, was one of the earliest people I know to move to Hastings. Which must now be crammed with South East Londoners 🤣
    • That Neal Street veggie cafe was great. Food For Thought ❤️
    • Hi Dogkennelhillbilly, You won't be aware that i proposed infill sites for housing in East Dulwich - the garages on Bassano Street and Henslowe that respectively became 1-4 Dill Terrace family houses and the 78, 80, 80A Henslowe Street family houses. These were council owned garages and it was frustrating how slow the council was to go from my idea to completion (roughly eight years). East Dulwich has some other vacant WW2 bomb sites I'm guessing that the private land owners have been sitting on.Owe for a land tax for vacant land.  WRT to the builders yard by East dulwich station. Southwark Council has an agreed policy the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum. But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. The council has recently publicly stated lower ratios of social housing will be required. I will be amazed if the developer doesn't submit another application now they have the 9 storeys approved but with significantly less social housing. The less social housing the higher the land values. The higher the land values the less social housing viability reports state are possible.  If we really want to increase home supply - Southwark have over 6,000 empty homes. Vancouver charges a low % of the value of empty homes and rapidly eased this problem. Parts of Wales have introduced under Article 4 planning permission is required for second homes seeing within 12 months a dramatic decrease in property prices. Southwark Council have Article 4 requirements - why not add this one? It takes National political will to solve this AND regional and local authorities such as the second home council tax premium and these being used promptly. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...