# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo: Emily Norton

What if boys and girls were treated exactly the same? What difference would it make to them... to their self-esteem... to their confidence?

The Lincolnite spoke to primary school teacher and gender neutrality champion Graham Andre when he visited the city for a talk as part of the Be Inspired lecture series at the University of Lincoln.

The free podcast is available to download now via Apple, Android and Spotify.
SUBSCRIBE here (Apple), here (Spotify) and here (Android) to enjoy any time.
We met Graham in the Eleanor Glanville Centre on the University of Lincoln campus, where a dedicated team work to drive cultural change, inclusion and diversity across the institution.

He had spent the day exploring the city after travelling from the Isle of White for the talk, and began the meeting by discussing his experiences under the lens of BBC camera crews.

In 2017, Graham appeared on a reality TV programme about gender free classrooms titled No More Boys and Girls.

Observing his teaching methods at his Lanesend school was Dr Javid Abdelmoniem, who posed the theory that stripping away simple but harmful gender stereotypes, such as blue vs pink, at a young age could help them achieve equality in their adult life.

There were numerous gender challenging exercises, perhaps the most controversial of which being the introduction of a unisex bathroom in the school.

But some of the ideas stuck, and he's been advocating gender free teaching ever since.

He told The Lincolnite's Emily Norton that he learned during the experiment that he had been unconsciously treating boys and girls differently: "When you do your teacher training you don't necessarily think about the language you use, the stereotypical messages and the impact it has on the children."

Graham explained that on close assessment he had been using different nicknames such as 'mate' for boys and 'love' for girls. It was also noted that he had a habit of picking boys to answer questions more regularly, which he admitted was often due to loud and boisterous calls from the boys to have their say.

"Girls and boys all agreed that boys were stronger," he added, remembering discussions with the children. "Unconsciously, we are so often telling children that boys are strong, good and sports and never show emotion, and that girls are lovely, pretty and like fairies and unicorns."

Many children confidently told the camera during the programme that 'boys are strong and clever', that 'girls are pretty'. Some confidently explained that 'the man will go to work while the woman looks after the home and children.'

Graham argued that children who grow up surrounded by stereotypical gender messages may limit themselves and their aspirations.

Changing his behaviour and language, filling his classroom with gender neutral books with female heroes and boys who show emotion, and encouraging his pupils to believe they can "be who they want" has led to some big changes already, he said.

He no longer asks for 'a line of boys and a line of girls' or for 'a strong boy to come and help lift this bench'.

He described his class as being 'full of confident girls' and 'boys who aren't afraid to be creative or in touch with their emotions'.

It isn't easy to encourage some people to get on board with the idea, Graham added.

"Women seem to really grasp it and want things to change. Men are more reluctant. I don't know if it's because men, who have all the privileges in life, don't want things to change. I think there's a bigger need for men to change."

Graham's talk also focused on the need for more male role models: "Men are three times more likely to take their own lives than women and I think that all stems back to men being boys that can't talk about their feelings."
How can parents, carers and teachers implement a gender neutral environment for their children? Listen to the podcast in full to hear Graham's top tips. ALSO LISTEN to our first podcast featuring renowned archeologist and former Time Team presenter Carenza Lewis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Podcast: Graham Andre - 'No more boys and girls'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What if boys and girls were treated exactly the same? What difference would it make to them... to their self-esteem... to their confidence? The Lincolnite spoke to primary school teacher and gender neutrality champion Graham Andre when he visited the city for a talk as part of the Be Inspired lecture series at the University of Lincoln.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Matt Pinkett grimaces as he repeats Charles Dickens's description of a female character in A Christmas Carol. "She had a 'ripe little mouth'," he says. "Isn't that a horrible way to describe women?" The woman in question, Scrooge's nephew's wife, is peripheral to the tale; Pinkett's students aren't going to get a GCSE question about her. But he draws their attention to it every time he teaches the text: "It only takes me five minutes to say, 'Why is this man infantilising this woman? Why that word ripe? It suggests consumption, it's horrible'."

The questions are part of what Pinkett, a shaven-headed, blokeish English teacher at King's College Guildford, a comprehensive academy in Surrey, calls "militant tenderness" - his deliberate drive to combat what he sees as the "hyper-masculinisation" of boys by society, by modelling an alternative masculinity that values "kindness, vulnerability and love".

Often it's about as little as being relentlessly polite - saying please and thank you to his pupils - or expressing his emotions. "I'll well up because a kid has written something beautiful or amazing," he says. "Why would I hide that?"

Then there's making sure he never fails to pick up on any "negative aspects of masculinity". He pays merciless attention to his own language and that of his students and is fastidious about not using heteronormative examples: every time he asks a question such as why a man might write his girlfriend a sonnet, he'll ask one about a man and his boyfriend, too.

Pinkett, 32, who calls himself "Mr Pink" on Twitter, readily admits that as a younger man he indulged in just the kind of macho posturing he now rails against. So what inspired his philosophy now? "It's me getting older, it's my two-year-old daughter at an age where already I can see attempts to gender her a certain way," he says.

His research for the book on improving boys' educational outcomes he's writing with Mark Roberts (see below), whom he met through Twitter, has played a big part too.

He does think his own personal style helps to make the point. "I'm just some skinhead bloke that talks a bit rough; if kids can see me being critical of the way people are gendered, that's important," he says. He thinks any teacher can - and should - be talking about gender.

The messages are getting through, Pinkett says. "This year I've had working-class boys say things to me like 'it's OK to cry, isn't it, sir?'. I've heard them call out their mates for saying 'you're crying like a girl'." And it's not just about boys: "One girl said to me, 'my mum keeps laughing at me because I didn't know anything about feminism, and now it's all I talk about'."

#MeToo in primary school

Caroline Ash had her lightbulb moment reading a fairy story in class, and decided that rooting out sexist stereotypes needed to start with the very youngest children.

"It was in the midst of the #MeToo campaign," the deputy head at Horton Grange primary school in Blyth, Northumberland, says. "And here I am, reading a story about somebody who's sent to sleep by a wicked witch, is basically in a drug-induced coma, is kissed by a prince, wakes up and says 'oh, he's lovely, I'll marry him'."

Blyth is an old mining town and roles still tend to be stereotyped, Ash says. "The children do still see themselves in those very gender traditional roles. It's very much the boys having to toughen up and the girls being objectified in terms of how pretty they are." In year 3, the majority of pupils thought girls had smaller brains than boys.

Since her #MeToo moment, Ash has headed a school-wide drive to root out bias. That's included a shake-up of the play areas in early years classes to put writing materials and dolls - which boys now play happily with - in the construction areas.

"We want children to feel free to make their own choices and not forced or pressured to make choices based on gender expectations," Ash says.

There are discussions about misogynistic attitudes, a revamp of the curriculum so it no longer focuses on "dead white men", and a focus on books with female leads - though Ash is frustrated at how hard it is find anything with nurturing male role models.

Ash thinks the changes have had an impact. "We are starting to get boys who feel passionately that their sisters and mothers and friends shouldn't be treated differently."

When Mark Roberts was brought into his school to improve boys' results, his method was paradoxically to teach them the same way he teaches girls.

Roberts, assistant principal at Tavistock College in Devon, doesn't believe in "boy-friendly" lessons. The idea of special strategies for boys is "absolute rubbish", he thinks, and is also counter-productive: teaching centred on topics that it's assumed will draw boys in, such as competition or sport, merely plays to the stereotypes that encourage them to turn off school in the first place. "We have this kind of toxic masculine culture where to be successful at academic work is seen as effeminate," he says. "They're not just seen as swots, but not being real men and real boys.

"Instead of being pandered to, boys - particularly working-class boys, who are generally the ones who underperform - need to have wider exposure to cultural capital, to know more about things their more privileged peers use to succeed."

"We've got to break down stereotypes about subjects and as a male English teacher that's something I've been passionate about doing," he says. "I really emphasise gender as a construct and how society expects boys and men, and women and girls, to behave.

"We use the texts to address that, so in Romeo and Juliet, where Romeo's says Juliet's beauty 'hath made me effeminate', we look at this idea that falling in love makes him less of a man."

Roberts went to a "working-class northern school where you kept your head down if you knew the answers". "I empathised with these boys who were clever but wanted to fit in as well," he says. In his classes any mockery is challenged immediately.

It seems to be yielding results: while only a quarter of students taking A-level English at the school used to be male - around the same as the national picture - half this year's year 13 group are boys. And last year an equal number of boys and girls at the school got a Grade 9 in GCSE English, while nationally two-thirds of the top grades went to girls.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

The gender-neutral school

You may recognise Graham Andre from the telly: the affable teacher was at the heart of the BBC documentary No More Boys and Girls, which saw his year 3 class at Lanesend primary on the Isle of Wight spend a term in a gender-neutral classroom. Having begun being pulled up for constantly calling girls "love" and "darling" and boys "fella" and "mate", he swiftly went on to be a key player in the project.

A year on, it's become a passion. The approach has been adopted across the school, and Andre is on the steering group of the Gender Equality Charter, which aims to help homes, schools and businesses root out inequality.

A lot of what the school is doing is about language, he explains. Classrooms have messages such as "girls are adventurous" and "boys are nurturing" on the walls.

In literacy, they've been working on words to describe feelings - happiness, sadness, what love means to them - and he's found the boys far more able to talk openly than they used to be. The way they cope with anger is improving, too, he thinks. "They're calming down a lot quicker, and now they can analyse why they're angry - whereas before they would just say 'I'm just angry'."

Last term the "Boots to Ballet" project saw a troupe of more than 40 boys with no prior experience of ballet perform a version of The Nutcracker, with the help of a local dance teacher. "She said she doesn't think she could have achieved what she did in any other school, as the boys here were so open to trying it because of the work we've been doing on stereotypes," Andre says.

Meanwhile, the girls' football team triumphed in every match last year. "A lot of that is down to this positive vibe they're getting that girls can play sport. Boys are seeing that girls are just as able as they are and there's a bit more respect there."
Editor's note: Lots of other teachers will have great ideas about how to stamp out sexism in schools. Tell us how you do it below the line. Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Militant tenderness: how teachers are rooting out sexism in school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Matt Pinkett grimaces as he repeats Charles Dickens's description of a female character in A Christmas Carol. "She had a 'ripe little mouth'," he says. "Isn't that a horrible way to describe women?" The woman in question, Scrooge's nephew's wife, is peripheral to the tale; Pinkett's students aren't going to get a GCSE question about her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I was inspired to write this article after a conversation with one of my closest friends. She informed me about a documentary she had seen about "being Gender Neutral" that was entitled "No more Boys and Girls ". Upon hearing this title I wondered whether it was going to be about "aborting" the terms, "girls", "boys", "Mr" and "Mrs" etc. from the English language altogether. There has been talk about that here in England and personally I disagree. So I was delighted when my friend informed me that the documentary was in fact about "subconscious things that parents, teachers and anyone working with children/ teenagers - all do that unconsciously causes a division in the "sexes" and create huge disadvantages in different ways for both girls and boys". Before I continue I feel it's important to put forward why I don't think we should completely "abort the terms "boy", "girl" etc.

The reason for this is because I believe it would cause mass confusion. There is a lot of evidence showing how women and men think differently, as well as look different. In his programme "Natural and Lasting Attraction" relationship Expert Christian Carter puts forward how in helping women create better relationships with men it became really clear to him that men and women think "so radically differently". Having made similar observations myself, I agree with his very well considered point of view. Taking this into due consideration I believe we shouldn't allow the "pendulum to swing too far" either way; that is to either go completely genderless, or totally separate. Think about it; what is the first question anyone asks someone who's just had a baby? - Is it a girl, or boy? Also, when they begin to become more aware of physical differences they will subconsciously know there is a difference and it will be confusing if that's not "recognised". Plus, when studying subjects such as biology and learning that animals and even parts of a plant can be female, or male they will naturally be confused as to why it not used for them too. Being male or female is deeply embodied in our identity and changing this would create mass identity confusion and cause a lot of unnecessary upset. There's always more than one path to any destination - so other solutions for any issue can be found.

Well after a deep conversation with my dear friend about the documentaries, (two in the series) - and she's a Lecturer so it was very deep (!) - I was hooked on the topic and just had to see the documentaries myself. In the evenings over the course of a week whilst doing some food preparation I watched both documentaries on BBC iPlayer. I was absolutely fascinated and felt that I just had to share what I learnt and how I believe that it translates to the success of the whole "Family Team".
The Source of Inspiration!
The documentaries are presented by Doctor Javid Abdelmeneim - I will refer to him as Dr Javid - who had become concerned about the differences in achievements he was noticing in boys and girls. What concerned him the most about his observations was how girls in general seemed to underestimate themselves whilst boys on the whole overestimated themselves. His study and knowledge of child physiology demonstrates how until a child hits puberty that boys and girls of the same height and build are of equal strength. So why do girls seem to feel boys are so much stronger? The whole documentary is an experiment led by Dr Javid with one class of seven years olds for a term in a Primary School on the Ilse of Weight. He used the parallel class as a control and his aim was to see if a few simple changes to expand both girls and boys visions of what they are both capable of achieving would make a difference and improve their self-image.

How stable an individual is and how well balanced their self-esteem is as an adult is centred on the self-image that they create as a child. Please note here that because childhood is very much a learning process and children literally come from nothing they have no preconceived ideas about anything, thus their self-image is largely dictated by how others around them, especially the key adults in their life, treat them. The important factor here is that even some adults still find it difficult not to allow the opinion of others to influence how they see themselves; so for a child it is vitally important that the key adults around them help them to build a really positive self-image. As someone who had a self-image that was through the floor as a child and teenager this area of development is very close to my heart. Through sheer determination I dramatically improved my self-imaged thus turned my self-esteem around. I really don't want anyone else to severely lack the confidence that I initially lacked as a result of a poor self-image.
The Experiment:
Dr Javid began the experiment by informing the children that over the course of the term he was going to make some changes to see whether it would help them do things better and he gave them a simple questionnaire to find out their existing ideas about what they perceived it means to be a "boys" or "girls". He was shocked to find that girls significantly under-estimated their intelligence and had less self-esteem and self-confidence and their description of themselves was centred around looks. Whereas boys tended to over-estimate themselves and seemed unable to express their emotions except for anger, which Dr Javid described as disturbing. They also both had very fixed ideas about the types of jobs that "men and women do. When ask which gender was better all the children bar one girl (hooray for her!) said boys. - I definitely agree with Dr Javid that this is very alarming.

The Headmistress also noticed the parallels and differences in the attitudes of the boys and girls. Sadly the girls didn't seem to think they were as capable as the boys. Yet they both seemed to agree on men and women's "roles" in adult life. Men were the protectors and main money earner and women looked after the children and home. Education that sets children up for life should mean both can do either role just as well and therefore choose what they prefer.

It's important to note here that although the children seemed to have very fixed ideas they are not so fixed that they cannot be changed. As Professor Gina Rippon, who was featured on the documentary and is a Leading Expert in Cognitive Neuro-Imaging, put forward; "structurally there is very little difference between the brains of girls and boys ". She describes the brain as very plastic, mouldable/ changeable, so something isn't necessarily fixed and invariant. A person's brain development is very connected to the society in that they live, plus their experiences and upbringing. Western Culture often subconsciously differentiates a lot between boys and girls; ideas about what it means and how they should look/ behave etc. It's their experiences and nurture that have taught girls and boys different skills and mental attitudes. You only have to watch a period drama to see this and how it has changed over the years -So differences are not set in stone!

To give an example of this; my dear friend mentioned that her niece and nephew had an opportunity to see the inside of an aeroplane on a guided tour by a pilot. He told them about how the aeroplane worked and her nephew (NB the older child) put forward that when he grew up he wanted to be a pilot. With no obvious source of influence her niece then piped up; "Yes and I can be the hostess and look after the passengers"! (NB words to that effect) Their mother gently put forward that she was sure her daughter could aim higher than that! As my dear friend said; "We didn't realise until watching this documentary how much what we do effects how they see themselves. It was quite alarming to hear this from my niece who's only three and a half! - She must have somehow subconsciously received this message; it's quite alarming!" Children definitely pick up very strongly either subconsciously, or unconscious on the "hidden messages" in the things we say and do. I remember very consciously picking up one these messages and my second book, that will be more detailed, will go in to this a lot more.
The Beginning of Change:
Dr Javid wanted to begin by changing boys and girls images of both themselves and each other. Changing the way you think and perceive something is the key to changing attitudes and behaviours. So the very first thing he did was to put messages round the classroom with simple statements on them that read; "Girls are Strong; Boys are Strong; Boys are Sensitive; Girls are Sensitive; Girls are Clever; Boys are Clever, etc." Hence this gives both genders the same message that it is possible for girls to also be strong and boys are capable of sensitivity. J

Obviously the most important influence in the classroom is the Teacher, Mr Andre, so it's crucially important to ensure that he is also giving the children the message that girls and boys are all equally capable. To effectively create any lasting change, as Dr Javid put forward, it is necessary to eliminate anything where girls and boys are treated differently solely based on their gender. Dr Javid quickly observed that the Mr Andre called the girls "love" a lot and the boys "mate". To sensitively discourage this he put a simple chart on the wall and enlisted the children's help by instructing them that every time Mr Andre used pet names the children were allowed to put a sad face by either "love", or "mate"! - It worked very successfully!

I have to say here that I'm guilty of using "pet names" with children. My career has been centred on working with very young children from "babyhood" right up to "early primary-school age" - mainly with children from 8 months to five years. Plus, I have mainly worked with children in their home; you work more closely with children and observe a lot more when you work with them in their home. The first thing that I have observed is children seem to subconsciously "grow closer" to, and feel more "cared for" by an adult who uses "pet names". This makes sense because it's an affectionate means of addressing someone. In my defence (ha!), I do call both boys and girls "Honey, Sweetie, Lovely"; I don't use Mate at all!" I actually call my friends "Honey" too; however here I do differentiate and don't give any males friends a pet name at all!! - Sorry about that!! Very interestingly my sister will call me "Mate, or Dude" and she does this with her friends too. How we've both "evolved" to use different pet names for people is interesting. Her career's been with secondary aged children and mine with mainly pre-school, may be that has something to do with it? I'd be intrigued to know what Dr Javid has to say about whether it cancels out any difference to give both boys and girls the same pet names?!

Very interestingly Dr Javid gave the children a list of jobs - teacher, fire-fighter, hairdresser, pilot etc. - and asked them to say whether they thought each job was more likely to be done by and man, or a woman. Quite shockingly the children were very certain about which types of jobs were for men and which type for women with little, or no flexibility. Obviously this is completely limiting because they are already cutting themselves off from whole professions based on their gender alone. To challenge this Dr Javid first asked the children to draw four characters; a make-up artist, a car mechanic, a magician and a dancer, and give them a name. As you may have guessed, almost without exception the children made the dancer and make-up artist a woman and the mechanic and magician a man. After this activity Dr Javid introduced the children to four people; a female car mechanic, and magician and a male dancer and make-up artist. The children were absolutely fascinated and you could see that it instantly changed their perspective about the types of jobs that men and women can do. One of the boys in particular enthusiastically informed his Mum at the end of the day how he had met a "lady car mechanic......and a male make-up artist"! What really "spoke" to me about this part was when Dr Javid put forward that this is such an easy activity for schools to do, yet they aren't; so more children are growing up with limiting ideas about what they can achieve. This was what made me feel that I had a duty to write this article and share the message with more people. You want children to choose a profession based on what they are truly interested in; not because they feel it's the only profession they are capable of doing. Interestingly both the dancer and the make-up artist both worked in film. So anyone struggling with the idea of being more gender neutral I would ask this; do you have limiting ideas on what a make-up artist/ dancer does?? -There are more skills to certain jobs than what some people may initially think.
The importance of Spatial Awareness in Male Dominated Jobs:
As Dr Javid put forward, it was great to start to change the children's perceptions about what they can do; he also wanted to improve the girl's self-confidence about what they can achieve. "The Office of National Statistics " reveals that less than 10% of engineers are women and only 20% of architects are women. One ability central to both these professions is spatial awareness, which is the ability to process numbers and shapes and have an understanding of how they "fit together" and how this will change when they are rotated or turned over. This is also important even in surgery, which is also male dominated.

For anyone not convinced of the connection between the toys a child plays with and the profession they choose in adulthood; Professor Robert Winston in his "Child of Our Time " series mentioned a study that revealed a connection between adult profession and favourite childhood toys. For example, people interviewed in the building profession put forward that their favourite toy as a child was Lego. There were other striking examples like this too! So to assess the children's spatial awareness abilities Dr Javid decided to give the children tangram puzzles, which involves putting a set of 7-8 two dimensional shapes together to create a "given image". The boys definitely completed this notably more quickly than the girls and Dr Javid took the results to Dr Gina Rippon to discuss possible reasons for this outcome.

Dr Rippon put forward that the difference is Not due to any structural difference in the brain. This can only mean that nurture and how children have been encouraged to play is what has created the difference. Boys who may often grow up used to playing with Lego and other toys that increase spatial awareness skills will be more practiced at thus more able. As Dr Rippon put forward; "The more practiced you are at doing something the better you become and the more you enjoy doing it".

Girls who may be more used to playing with dolls are going to be less practiced at spatial awareness activities and thus less good at them. Dr Rippon also put forward that if this was the case, if girls were encouraged to do things like Tangram Puzzles regularly it would increase their spatial awareness skills and create a lasting difference in the brain! To find out more Dr Javid decided to conduct an experiment to see how adults would encourage infants they thought were boys and infants they thought were girls to play.
Gender Distinctions Starting in Babyhood!
A couple of infant girls were dressed as boys and vice versa and different volunteering adults who were not familiar with the child were asked to encourage play with them. Startlingly in every case when the volunteering adult thought they were playing with a boy they went for "traditionally boy toys" such as cars and robots and if they thought they were playing with a girl, the adults chose dolls, or soft toys. When they had the child's "real gender" revealed to them they were actually shocked at their own choices of toys for the children and said they just were not aware of what they were doing until it was pointed out!

Interestingly Professor Robert Winston conducted the same experiment in an episode of "Child of our Time" and the same results were apparent; when they adult thought they were playing with a girl they chose toys such as dolls, and for boys, toys such as cars. As Dr Javid put forward "When adults keep choosing for children", in most cases "they are going to end up there " in the direction they are being subconsciously pushed. I personally think that the fact the adults genuinely didn't realise what they were doing until they had it pointed out to them demonstrates how unconscious this "attitude" is towards "play" with boys and girls, and for me the obvious solution is Awareness!!
An Emphasis on Educational Toys:
I think it would be interesting to note here how I, as a Montessori trained Child-Education Expert "thinks about" choosing toys for young children. Because my passion is "Child-Education with-in the Home" it's no surprise that I have worked with families mainly with in their home (as opposed to working in a classroom). Thus, I have been in the advantageous position of choosing most of the children's "playroom toys". This is mainly the case when I have worked with babies and small toddlers. This is how I choose toys regardless of gender. My first question (to myself!) is; "what do I think is necessary for the child/children to be learning?" Then I ask myself; "what toys are best for teaching this?"- Obviously now having built up a career over a number of years I pretty much know after more brief periods of observation what toys an individual child needs at their particular stage of development. I will tell you now what toys and why I feel are a Must for the playroom of every 7 month - 2 year aged child:

· An Abacus. This is obviously great as you can count, most often, up to 100 on them! Believe me I have worked with two multi-lingual girls - one from 12 months and the other from 8 months - who very quickly began to enjoy watching and listening to me count up to 100, often several times in a row, on the abacus!! You can also do some elementary maths with 1.5 years+ on an abacus and it makes everything instantly visual and concrete for them! Please see my article on Mathematical Development to learn more.

· One of those wooden cubes where the child has to post through different solid shapes. The reason this is a good toy is because the child has to recognise which shape matches which space; they can also learn the names of different shapes too! I have known a child (girl!) as young as 17 months begin to master this activity and tell me the names of the shapes - she remembers most of them!!

· Simple wooden puzzles with " knobbed handles ". These are great because once again the child has to observe the shape of each piece to fit them in correctly. Plus the "knobbed handles" subconsciously encourage the child to develop the tripod pincer-grip in preparation for writing.

· Ordinary puzzles. These are best introduced at around 15-16 months and I have worked with a child who, when given the opportunity, by 2.5 years was able to complete 50-piece puzzles by himself. Children probably could learn to do more; I would encourage you to remember that at this stage of development you really want a child to develop rounded skills so they are able to "deal/cope" with all aspects of life.

· Lego. Please get what I think is known as Duplo for this stage of development. It's what I think of as "Large Lego"! What I thought was Duplo is in fact mega blocks! - Mega blocks in my mind are too big for small hands to use efficiently. So please get what I call "Large Lego" (Duplo); it is too big to be swallowed by a young child and they can build it using their own creative imagination any way they want!

· A toy garage, plus a variety of balls. These are great, especially when the child is learning to crawl and walk. When they "zoom" the toy cars, or balls down the garage, obviously they roll away encouraging the child to want to move after them; so please don't be too quick to retrieve them for the child otherwise they will not try and get it themselves. When the car has rolled too far a great trick is to put it just out of their reach and encourage them to stretch to retrieve it - use their muscles! Believe me; when they manage to grab-hold of it themselves the delight on their face at their own achievement is priceless.

· A wooden toy train set. Together you can play with this showing the child different ways the track can fit together and then how they can drive their trains along the track they have built. Great for when the child is learning to crawl and walk and also when they are older they can build the track themselves. I know a little girl who will choose this over dolls any day!!

· A tea-set. This is important for both genders to encourage adult role-play and social interaction. Children, even very young, will often like to "make you a cup of tea" and this encourages thoughtfulness and sensitivity for the needs of others.

· A toy push-chair, preferably one that's more of a neutral colour. NB Best for 12 months upwards. The reason this is great for both boys and girls is because when they have just learn to walk it encourages them to want to walk more. I know a little boy who, as his Mum put it; "will walk for miles with his push-chair"!! Plus, if they have a doll/ teddy they like to put inside this will encourage a caring attitude because they'll link it to you putting them in a push-chair to take them out. Thus it's great for encouraging sensitivity in boys.

· Tessellation shapes. I remember having these when I was young. They encourage you to fit together different shapes to make any pattern of your choosing, (Creative). Great for 18 months onwards. Any child given tessellation shapes young will whizz through tangram puzzles at school!!

· Stacking toys; both wooden rings on a "pole" and stacking cups!! The child has to learn about size and volume here. Stacking cups can be played with in the bath and they can fit inside each other so the child has to discern the correct order. It encourages focus, hand-eye co-ordination and awareness of size and volume.

· Large threading to help develop their hand-eye-co-ordination and focus.

· Wooden (if possible) children's musical instruments. The reason these are important is because when you sing with your little ones it gives them an opportunity to actively join in before they talk. Even when they are talking children still love playing with musical instruments. I know a child (learning three languages!) who at 16-17 months old began singing along - even though she was still learning to talk - with a lot of the nursery-rhymes I sang to her. She has the best ear for the tune of a song that I have heard in a child so young. Being musical encourages various links in the brain that are great for intellectual development so musical instruments are a must too!

· Children's drawing pencils and paints. For the obvious encouragement of the tripod pincer-grip, plus gross/ fine motor skills, hand/eye co-ordination and focus in preparation for writing. Also, for the development of the child's own individual creativity.

· A great selection of books. NB I would just like to put forward here that there are a few books that are great for teaching letter sounds to children; these are detailed in my Language Development article. So please see this article, or message me for further details, thank-you!

Can you see how the common thread of all these toys is that they are all educational in some way or another encouraging all-round holistic development in children? Also, importantly they should be bought for both genders; I have used these toys with both genders and the results are Amazing! Plus, where possible, I have stated that it's best to get wooden toys. Natural materials are best, especially considering very young children are still at an oral stage of development where they put everything in their mouth. The reason for this is because it's how they judge the shape, size and texture of each object. As young baby's vision is still developing, it is easier for them to learn about the size/ shape/ texture of an object by putting it in their mouth. If everything is plastic this limits their learning experience. Montessori Practical Life and Sensorial activities are also great for supporting the holistic education of 2-5 year old. For more details please see my articles on The Genius of Montessori Practical Life,and on Montessori Sensorial, thank-you. So, when choosing toys for children's birthdays and at Christmas time, etc. please endeavour to choose them for their educational value and avoid any boy/girl emphasis.

With books, I would also just like to put forward that Dr Javid mentioned that a study done in Florida State University that revealed only 31% of books had a main female heroin. Plus, books with a male hero often showed them celebrating negative characteristics such as obsessive competitiveness and aggression. This is not giving primary school-aged children with still very impressionable minds a great message.

Sadly, when asked what girls were better at than boys, one girl replied; "Being pretty and wearing dresses." Girls are capable of so much more than just looking good and we need to give that message at home, in books, toys on television programmes/ adverts they may watch/ be exposed too etc. In the same way we need to give boys the message that violence is not the answer and there are smarter ways to get what you want - box cleaver!! This is the only way to create lasting change.

If I'm honest, I would really encourage retailers to start considering consulting child education/ development Experts about the design and marketing of children's toys with the specific aim to give as much of an educational emphasis to all toys as possible. This would help maximise "constructive play" where children are able to subconsciously learning whilst playing, plus: it could help create a fairer, less-biased society and help support children's holistic education in all areas of society.
The Strength Test:
In addition to changing the children's classroom environment to create a more neutrally positive message, Dr Javid also want to improve the girl's self-esteem because they very much still underestimated themselves. Self-esteem is vital for holistic success in life so it is crucial to change the girl's self-image and help them see exactly what they are potentially capable of achieving. So Dr Javid devised a "Strength Test" using a "fairground high striker". First he asked the children to estimate how well they thought they'd do and this was labelled by the class Teacher, Mr Andre. Almost all the boys said they'd score 10 (the highest score) with one boy claiming he'd break the bell! There was even some quarrelling amongst the boys as to who would score the highest. This underlines exactly how boys pick up on the subconscious messages in books and in general attitude when negative characteristics such as obsessive competitiveness are celebrated amongst male characters. The outcome is quarrelling about whose best rather than working to be better themselves. The girls on the other hand mostly estimated their scores between 3 and 6, and were happy to put themselves behind the boys. There is no muscle-mass difference in boys and girls of the same height and build at this age. Also, interestingly the children seemed to be linking strength to emotion; boys cry less therefore they are stronger. This obviously has nothing to do with physical strength; even mental strength in my mind is shown through vulnerability - not emotional suppression.

After every child had estimated their score they each received three attempts to hit the target; their results were recorded by their class Teacher. As you can imagine, a lot of the boys scored much lower than 10 and more girls scored 10 than boys. One girl was so overwhelmed by how well she did that she burst into tears. She was immediately comforted by her fellow girl classmates. Interestingly the boy who claimed he would break the bell scored "0" because he rushed his turn and missed the target. He then had a "paddy" on the lawn. An intriguing difference here is that he was given no empathy by either boy or girl classmates and just left to paddy. He was essentially throwing a tantrum as opposed to being genuinely upset and the children could all see that. Only Dr Javid and Mr Andre went to speak to him. This suggests that perhaps the girls did slightly better because they took the time to focus and didn't rush. Another interesting factor here is it actually suggests that despite his huge over-estimation of himself, he is actually rather insecure in himself because a secure person doesn't need to come top in everything all the time as they are comfortable with whom they are regardless. Please note that a secure individual may want to achieve more - they would work for it rather than fuss about it.

What this experiment essentially demonstrated to the children is how much the girls underestimated their actual capability and vice versa for the boys. This was a real confidence booster for the girls and an eye-opener for the boys. One boy commented; "Before I did this I thought that boys are stronger than girls because everyone just said that. Now I think that girls and boys can be strong." "Out of the mouths of babes"; "because everyone just said that"! - Do you subconsciously give that message? Also, I think the boy who threw the paddy and received no empathy - especially in stark contrast to the overwhelmed girl receiving a flood of empathy - subconsciously began to become more sensitive. His need to be the best was thwarted by the lack of attention he received when he didn't live-up to his own expectation; hence this I noticed began to encourage more empathy in him.

Although Dr Javid was pleased with the change the experiment bought to the children's attitudes, he was concerned about how deeply engrained the children's attitudes were. The girls should have more natural confidence and the boys seemed to initially delight in obsessive competitiveness that only upset them when they fell beneath their own expectation. Dr Javid thought that the only solution was to take the "case" home to the parents and convince them to support his goal.
Taking the "Case" Home to the Parents!
One very telling sign that the children often received (unwittingly) a very gender biased message at home is what they themselves said about their home life! One boy said; "Mum's wash-up and do the dinners". One girl put forward that her Dad "usually just lays on the sofa a snores"!! Another boy's view of adult life was that "girls look after the child and boys go to work and do lots of cool stuff". This may seem amusing and innocent; it demonstrates how young girls and boys are already developing an image of what adult life will be like for them. Plus, it shows how they're receiving this message just from observations at home in addition to in books, television programmes/ adverts etc. I can't impress upon you enough the importance it is to actively ensure your child sees you both do a variety of tasks around the home to show them that women and men are capable of most things.

You may think that this sounds difficult/ unrealistic - it is possible - you just have to be determined enough to find a way of fitting it in your life. What better motivation than for the holistic benefit of your child's/children's holistic education. Just too also give you a little inspiration; I'll tell you some of the things children I've worked with have said about me. I have worked with children in various capacities in their home, including taking over "parental duties" whilst their parents were at work, (I have been nicknamed "Super Nanny"!!). One little boy (4 years at the time) over the period of a couple of months (NB when I first started working with him) said on three separate occasions, first; "how come you're so cleaver?" - I had only been working with him a few weeks and he has intelligent parents - and he knows it!! About three week later he said; "how come you're so strong?" This was after he noticed I could lift heavy objects. About a month or so after that in the warmer weather when we were at the park he said; "how come you're so fast?"

If you notice, apart from being cleaver, the other two characteristics are both ones that may, by most people be seen a "male characteristics" - definitely by the children Dr Javid was working with. Somehow, in a couple of months through role-modelling alone I manage (with effort!) to convey these characteristics to the little boy I was working with, hence showing him that girls can be cleaver strong and fast too! Also, several girls I have worked with have exclaimed that they want to be just like me when they're older. I know from their interests that the definitely wouldn't choose the same profession; what they're noticing is how I'm able to "take charge" in a situation, and am "respected" and "liked" by them and other children. So you can role-model "successful characteristics" in all types of situations including at home round the house.

To approach the matter to the parents sensitively Dr Javid started by handing them "packs" that detailed what he had been doing with the children and what he hoped to achieve. He asked for their co-operation and arranged to meet some of the parents at their home to talk further about how they needed to help in order to create lasting change. I actually feel that the parents were already open to what Dr Javid had to say as a result of the enthusiasm the children clearly demonstrated to all the changes he made. They could clearly see this and thus were intrigued to hear more.

What I noticed when Dr Javid was talking to the parents was how interested they were in what he was proposing and how they definitely saw how they unwittingly contributed to giving a gender biased impression to their children. This is a very tough thing to admit and "high five" that they did it with honesty and grace. They also put forward to Dr Javid that they felt it was a difficult task to achieve. I would definitely agree that suggesting to a parent that most of their children's toys (the gender biased ones) are going to have to go is very difficult! Considering all the factors - the parent's guilt, the children's "probable unwillingness " - that's tough. Dr Javid even gave them black bin-liners to start getting on with the task!!

Incredibly, what happened I felt was pretty amazing!! The children were so enthused by everything they had been learning at school and were obviously inspired by Dr Javid and their class teacher that they willingly gave up most of their toys!! - The only kept a few old favourites. One girl was particularly enthusiastic about getting rid of anything gender biased!!

Obviously for the children to make such "big sacrifices" (for a child - it is) with their toys, Dr Javid gave them all a gift in return. Their gifts had a twist!! A lot of the girls received Meccano and constructions kits and quite a number of the boys received a sewing kit - including the boy who was very overly competitive during the strength test and ended up scoring "0"! After having a chance to play with their new toys at home one girl was especially enthused and asked her Mum to buy some more Meccano!! She put forward; "I think it's aimed at boys because of what the outer package looks like"! This to me clearly demonstrates that the reason she was never interested in playing with it before is because it was not presented in a way that showed it's fun for girls too! One of my favour parts of the documentary was when the very over-competitive boy was asked how he enjoyed playing with the sewing kit!! He proudly showed the finished pieces to Dr Javid and Mr Andre and told them he did it by himself as his Mum didn't know how to do it!!!! - Well "High Five his Mum "!!

I definitely remember having Lego, Tessellation Shapes and a Garage when I was young; they were not presented to me as boys toys, hence I enjoyed playing with them in addition to also playing with some more traditionally "girls toys". The way toys are presented to children by both the manufacturer and the parents - "Parents," you can make a real difference here" - does make a difference to how interested they'll be in playing with it. Hence if it's just presented a "fun and interesting" - because educational toys are - then children will enjoy playing with them. I can testify to that with all the children's I've worked with!
The Unisex Toilet!
The only "change" that the children didn't like so much was the unisex toilets!! Obviously if you have a son and a daughter - they both will use the same toilet at home. So Dr Javid's reasoning was why should this change at school? The main "issues" that the children put forward were first, waiting longer to use the toilet. The boy's didn't like the fact that as the urinals were not in cubicles they used the ordinary toilet, hence all the queuing. The girls didn't like the fact that they observed the boys use the toilet then go out without washing their hands afterwards! - I can empathise here as I'm pretty big on hygiene!! J

I have to say that I can empathise with both points of view here! Plus, I have a solution for Dr Javid!! The reason I believe it didn't work is because all they could do in the time was to change the signs from "girls" and "boys" toilets to one with an image of a girl and boy to show that both genders could now use them. Whereas I feel you need to have specifically designed toilets rooms that can be used by both genders and avoid the obvious "issues". You need to have three different "toilet-rooms" all joined by doors. One on one side for just "girls" and on the other side for just "boys" - this would have all the urinals in it. The one in the middle can be for both. On each adjoining door (both inside and out) you need to have a sign stating clearly whether the toilet is for "boys", "girls", or "both" so the children clearly know. This way when the boys want to use the urinals there is no embarrassment caused, and if the girls need to pass more that water they don't have to worry about the boys being present. I'm certain that would work; curious to know what Dr Javid thinks?!

Another things I'd like to point out here also is that this was an experiment and very "in line" with how Maria Montessori approached things. You don't know until you try and if it doesn't work you either find a solution, or change the plan! Maria Montessori did certain things that may be considered a little "risky" now - obviously not disproportionately risky, just with a risk element! People willing to give things a shot - even if the results are uncertain, or may not turn out as expected - achieve more. - Look at what Maria Montessori achieved!
The T-Shirt Example:
I really implore that you take notice of this; it's subtle, yet the message is clear when demonstrated. I have long held the opinion that some of the statements on children's clothing are not "helpful" to encourage holistic success and good manners. One example I would personally give is a top a baby girl with whom I've worked with in a classroom setting wore. It read "High Maintenance". The saddest part is that she was - through no fault of her own, just a result of how her parents responded to her. Most of the other staff found it amusing; myself and one, or two others didn't. You definitely don't want to encourage children - boy, or girl - to be high maintenance as it's a needy, unattractive characteristic. Equally I would also say avoid "low maintenance" as that sounds like you shouldn't have any expectations/ take care of yourself. Well, there are image related "sayings" on children's clothing that can subtly be just as damaging. Dr Javid very cleverly pointed out a couple. He approached it cleverly with t-shirts he'd had especially designed to demonstrate the connection.

First, he demonstrated that a top reading "Forever Beautiful" for girl's subconsciously suggests that; "Looks are Important", "Boys are better than girls" (if they're just about looks) thus, "Made to be Underpaid".This is a very really issue that women all over the World are feeling right now. Hollywood has helped make this a very talked about subject in the media. Who would have thought that the different ways girls and boys are subconsciously treated during childhood could be one of the main causes?? The (permanent) solution is simple - First, think about the message you are giving your daughter/s - the subtle ones as well as the more obvious. In addition to the words you say, they are also receiving more subconscious messages, as demonstrated above, in the clothes you buy them - it doesn't need to be written on the clothes to give a clear message; how frilly is it? How revealing is it? Plus, your body language give a clear, subtle message; this is especially relevant if you have a son and daughter as you may be unwittingly giving them different messages that are not always beneficial to their self-image. Second, ensure that whether you have a daughter/s, son/s, or both please take an educational approach to buying them toys and get a broad variety for both genders so they can both grow up feeling holistically prepared for all areas of life.

The other example Dr Javid gave was a t-shirt designed for boys that read something like "Made to be Tough" (I can't remember the exact words). Again, Dr Javid demonstrated how that subtly gave the message; "Boys Shouldn't Cry", and "It's Ok to be Angry ". Something seemingly innocent giving a very negative message when looked at it more closely. The parents, with both examples, instantly noticed the connections and felt quite alarmed. For anyone having any doubts about this it's also worth considering that, as Dr Javid pointed out, less than 5% of the prison population are women. So are we inadvertently encouraging boys to be more likely to go to prison and girls, more likely to be underpaid? After watching the documentaries I would say "Yes", unwittingly we are. I have definitely always had a subconscious awareness of this and the way I approach education shows that. I am grateful to Dr Javid for helping me gain a conscious realisation of this and thus be able to share it with all of you.

So I would really encourage you to consider the subconscious message that your children's clothing is giving them. It's not just about what's written on their clothes, it's about the style also. For example, I recently had a conversation with someone who put forward that children's clothing in high street stores- especially for girls - is designed often quite openly to sexualise them. Not all children want this and parents I implore, and may even insist a little, that you shouldn't want this either. Please, if you're uncertain, do get in touch (details at the end) whether you're a parent, designer, retailer etc. I can most definitely advise and help here.
The End of the Experiment:
First I will give you the results in statistics, and then I will put forward some impressive observations to demonstrate the fantastic outcome of this experiment. Ok, statistics! The girl's self-esteem that Dr Javid had been quite concerned about had improved a great deal; initially the girl's self-esteem was 8% lower than the boys, now there is only 0.02% difference! Plus, no girl described themselves as ugly this time either! The boy's ability to describe all of their emotions (not just anger) had improved and their "Pro-Social" behaviour was up by 10%! Even more impressively, the boys "poor behaviour" had gone down by a whopping 57% - Well Done Boys!!!! As one boy put it; "It's better to tell people than to strop"!! The girl's self-motivation had gone up by 12%, and their ability to predict their scores had gone up by a massive 40% - Well Done Girls!!!! I'm sure the "Strength Test" helped here! Finally, ability to complete spatial awareness puzzles; five girls are now in the top ten (Note - a 50/50 split!) and a couple of the girls who were really struggling with tangram puzzles are now able to complete them with no assistance -bravo!! This is thanks to their class Teacher providing the opportunity to spend a bit of time each day doing tangram puzzles!

Ok, now for those impressive observations I mentioned!! To "test" how much the experiment had actually changed the children's thinking Dr Javid and Mr Andre first took the children to the beach and gave them two tasks; the children had to decide what task to participate in. The first task was to make the picnic for everyone. The second task was to build a fire (both life skills); NB Please note that the children just collected the wood and put it together to make the fire - an adult lit it! Interestingly it was a fairly even girl/boy split with both tasks. Even more interestingly with both tasks it was a girl who seemed to "take charge"! The girl who took charge of the picnic task put forward that she knew what to do because she'd seen her Mum make lots of picnic before. The girl who took charge of building the fire was actually one of the shier girls so both Dr Javid and Mr Andre were please at the obvious improvement to her confidence. Dr Javid and Mr Andre needed to give a little bit of supervision towards the end of the tasks - especially to the "picnic team" - largely the children were on top of things!!

The second "test" that Dr Javid gave the children was to practice for a class game of football in even mixed teams. Obviously it was only since the experiment that the girls had started to join in football game more often. Before the experiment it was pretty much only boys that played football so they were obviously better, being more practiced. Initially the boys were a little unsure about doing mixed teams. I think personally that it was realising how fun it was to include everyone that changed their minds. The real test came when Dr Javid put to them whether they would like to stay in mixed teams, or revert back to a boys V girls match. The vast majority of the boys insisted that they wanted to stay in mixed teams. Most impressively it was the boy who claimed that he would "break the bell" on the strength test who put forward very thoughtfully; "Boys are better at football because they do it more. Boys verses girls wouldn't be fair!"! This shows reasoning, plus it's a clear demonstration of sensitivity from one of the most competitive boys - fantastic! He could recognise that the boys would win easily and not only would this not be fair, but it wouldn't be so fun either!! The children all had a great time playing football on the beach!

To mark the end of the experiment the children did an assembly completely put together themselves to demonstrate what they had been learning throughout the term. It was lovely, they had picked up so much both directly and indirectly from the whole experience that had changed their limited way of thinking. The Headmistress was definitely keen to adopt some of the strategies that Dr Javid had put in place, plus Mr Andre was so enthused by the results that he started teaching the strategies to other Teachers!

I was very impressed with all the children by the end of the experiment. It was extremely apparent how much they had all taken "on board" both consciously and subconsciously what they had learned. NB You can recognise the subconscious learning from the more subtle detail the children picked up on. It's why they were so willing to give up most of their toys and it's what led to the permanent change in their attitude/perspective. It was a life-changing experience for them that I am certain will "pay them dividends" when they are older if the changes are kept in place. The whole experience had completely united the class. I was really struck by the children's "Team Work" and eagerness to all work together. As the children put it in their assembly; "boys and girls can make a team. To help us to achieve our dreams - we work in mixed teams and not on our own". This line in their assembly alone demonstrates first that the children recognise the value of working together and want to actively choose to do this. It also demonstrates great sensitivity from both boys and girls for each other to stick together and not leave anyone out. The children concluded their assembly with; "change your opinion on gender toys "! They clearly felt the benefits strongly and highly valued them.
My Conclusion:
As the above demonstrates the changes that were made clearly united the class. I strongly believe this could either help greatly reduce, or may even completely prevent bullying altogether! - Think about it; the children were keen to work together and not leave anyone out. They recognised the value this bought to everyone. If Teachers adopted these simple strategies with the same enthusiasm and care that both Dr Javid and Mr Andre did, it would most certainly bring about the same life-changing results that would definitely work towards a much fairer World where bullying was greatly frowned upon and thus easier to prevent. If children learn to work together and respect each other in Primary School they are far less likely to become bullies in Secondary School.

Another thing that could be dramatically reduced by this is divorce! Please just take a moment to think about it; girls and boys learning similar skills and "attitudes" and are eager to all work together - this sounds like a recipe for successful adult marriages to me!! This is supported by an article I serendipitously read in the Times magazine. It was about Chris and Kem; for anyone who doesn't know they were "Bromance Stars" of "Celebrity Love Island". I have a small confession to make; I don't watch Celebrity Love Island!!!! - I just read the article and was impressed at their openness in talking about their feelings. As Kem put it; "I feel strongly about guys being open about their feelings". Their sensitivity is what stood them out as a lot of men could relate to the fact that it's genuinely difficult for them (men) to talk about how they feel at any given moment. Chris had apparently opened up a lot about anxiety he felt when he was 18 (now 24). Kem (aged 22) also opened up about his anxieties that were so bad he wasn't able to complete school. As the article underlines; "Male mental health is still something of a taboo" and sadly men are "three times more likely to commit suicide than women". As Chris puts it, "Anxiety suffocates you " and for some men it is too much. So encouraging sensitivity and openness about feelings in boys could not only help reduce suicide, it could also mean that more marriages are a success because both men and women would then be in-tune with their feelings and what they really want in a partner, rather than just going for what looks right at the time. I also feel it's relevant to point out that this also demonstrates how a person's vulnerabilities is what makes them attractive to other and this was clearly demonstrated with Chris and Kem's their popularity on Celebrity Love Island!

For anyone feeling slightly sceptical I'd really like to highlight once again that the points being raised are not about saying boys and girls are the same, or taking away gender identity - No. If this was the case Dr Javid wouldn't have written "Boys are......", "Girls are ......" on the wall - right? He didn't ask girls to cut their hair and boys to grow theirs - No - Both boys and girls need to learn everything to ensure they both fully and holistically equipped for all aspects of life as an adult. That way they are capable of complete independence and only need to rely on themselves. When a person is able to do this, even when life gets tough; it's comforting to know you have all the tools within you to know how to deal with it. Plus, any "help" you do have is a real "felt" luxury because you know the effort it takes to do it yourself. People who appreciate things in life are happier human-beings. Dr Javid was just showing this to the children by avoiding distinctions and showing a more united perspective on life and learning. The children's response demonstrated that they felt girls and boys were capable of do the same things, and were actually both equally equipped as human-beings to handle all aspects of life. Real gender neutral in my mind is definitely not an abolition of gender identity, rather a celebration of both masculine and feminine qualities in both women and men.

It's a person's individual character and interests, regardless of whether you're male, or female that stands someone out. The more "skills" parents and teachers equip a child with, the more choice they have to find their passion and purpose in life!! Hence Dr Javid and Mr Andre created a learning environment where both boys and girls felt capable of being able to do anything they set their mind too. This obviously includes things that are traditionally seen as either being a "man", or "woman" task. So the reason for a gender neutral approach is to take the stigma away that some things are for boys and other things are for girls to provide an equal learning opportunity for both genders. Taking a gender neutral approach is the only way to totally eliminate any subconscious message that there are certain things they should and shouldn't do. Thus making whatever they decide to do in adult life a totally free choice because they are making it because they have chosen a specific path - not because they feel incapable of doing anything else.

I debated with myself whether or not to include this section and decided to go for it! Dr Javid mentioned a lot about adults creating a very "pink" World for girls and a "blue" World for boys, thus making a clear distinction between the two genders. When I was discussing the documentaries with my friend I became extremely aware that I was wearing a bright pink top!!!! - It said, "Never Give Up " on it - that's a positive message!! On a more serious note it had me thinking that I like bright, deep, pastel and dark colours and I wouldn't want to stop wearing any of them. Therefore, the best solution is not necessarily to completely stop dressing girls in pink and boys in blue, rather to have all colours accessible and acceptable for both genders. Anyone apprehensive about dressing a boy in pink it's worth reading this:

At the beginning of my career when I worked in a purpose-built Montessori classroom one of the boys (aged 3) had parents who felt it should be his choice how he had his hair and what he wore, etc. Hence they naturally embraced a gender neutral approach. Once he came in wearing a cerise pink (deep bright shade of pink) t-shirt; his Mum told me he had chosen it when on holiday. I was struck at how, pardon the expression, un-girlie he looked in it.

This is also a very interesting story for anyone who thinks pink "takes away" from a boy's masculinity:

When I was a young teenager I was visiting all my cousins with my family. We did the traditional "after lunch walk" and for some reason my Dad was wearing my Auntie's (his sister) pink coat. Being a typical teenager I commented to the cousins my age how embarrassing that was! The cousin who I always nick-named my "cool cousin" piped up; "I think your Dad's really cool! Most men would be too self-conscious to wear a pink coat like that; look at your Dad, he doesn't care and that's how he gets away with it." Something about this made sense to me and I was suddenly filled with pride as opposed to embarrassment - My Dad was officially cool!!

Masculinity and femininity both come from within - whatever you are wearing, or whatever you do does not make a difference if you feel masculine/ feminine on the inside. So embracing certain things that are traditionally seen as feminine definitely doesn't take anything away from a truly masculine man and vice-versa.

Interestingly I noticed that throughout the documentary Dr Javid wore a charcoal-grey shirt. I challenge him to try out wearing a pink shirt and embrace a more gender-neutral wardrobe himself!!

Finally, another interesting factor that will get anyone still feeling sceptical thinking; is the parallels this has with Montessori. For any of you who don't know, Maria Montessori was a Doctor and she took a scientific approach to children's education. She gave children different things to "play with" and observed what they did with them. Through her observations she inevitably began to noticed what worked and what didn't, plus what was helpful to set all children up to succeed holistically in life. The Practical Life area in Montessori isn't just for girls - No - it's for all children and I have to tell you I've worked with a lot of boys from different cultural backgrounds who love Practical Life activities such as sweeping, mopping and washing-up!! This helps them to develop good focus and co-ordination that is great preparation for sports and academic subjects. Maria Montessori made no discrimination of any kind, to her; education in all areas of life should and can be for all children regardless of gender, racial/ financial background, ability etc. - Education is for Everyone. That's the approach I take and the children's achievements are truly amazing.

To discuss further any of the points raised please contact me at: paula@paulaelizabeth.com, or message me through Instagram/ Twitter @FamilyTeamCoach, or on Facebook/ LinkedIn at Paula-Elizabeth Jordan, thank-you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender Neutral: Based on the #BBC Documentary "No More Boys and Girls"; What this means and How it Translates to the Success of Your "Family Teams" to make an Equal World for Boys and Girls. | Paula Elizabeth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I was inspired to write this article after a conversation with one of my closest friends. She informed me about a documentary she had seen about "being Gender Neutral" that was entitled "No more Boys and Girls ". Upon hearing this title I wondered whether it was going to be about "aborting" the terms, "girls", "boys", "Mr" and "Mrs" etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What this means and how it translates to the success of your "Family Teams" to make an equal world for boys and girls.

by Paula-Elizabeth Jordan

I was inspired to write this article after a conversation with one of my closest friends. She informed me about a documentary she had seen about "being Gender Neutral" that was entitled "No more Boys and Girls". Upon hearing this title I wondered whether it was going to be about "aborting" the terms, "girls", "boys", "Mr" and "Mrs" etc. from the English language altogether. There has been talk about that here in England and personally I disagree. So I was delighted when my friend informed me that the documentary was in fact about "subconscious things that parents, teachers and anyone working with children/ teenagers - all do that unconsciously causes a division in the "sexes" and create huge disadvantages in different ways for both girls and boys ". Before I continue I feel it's important to put forward why I don't think we should completely "abort the terms "boy", "girl" etc.

The reason for this is because I believe it would cause mass confusion. There is a lot of evidence showing how women and men think differently, as well as look different. In his programme "Natural and Lasting Attraction" relationship Expert Christian Carter puts forward how in helping women create better relationships with men it became really clear to him that men and women think "so radically differently". Having made similar observations myself, I agree with his very well considered point of view. Taking this into due consideration I believe we shouldn't allow the "pendulum to swing too far" either way; that is to either go completely genderless, or totally separate. Think about it; what is the first question anyone asks someone who's just had a baby? - Is it a girl, or boy? Also, when they begin to become more aware of physical differences they will subconsciously know there is a difference and it will be confusing if that's not "recognised". Plus, when studying subjects such as biology and learning that animals and even parts of a plant can be female, or male they will naturally be confused as to why it not used for them too. Being male or female is deeply embodied in our identity and changing this would create mass identity confusion and cause a lot of unnecessary upset. There's always more than one path to any destination - so other solutions for any issue can be found. 🙂

Well after a deep conversation with my dear friend about the documentaries, (two in the series) - and she's a Lecturer so it was very deep (!) - I was hooked on the topic and just had to see the documentaries myself. In the evenings over the course of a week whilst doing some food preparation I watched both documentaries on BBC iPlayer. I was absolutely fascinated and felt that I just had to share what I learnt and how I believe that it translates to the success of the whole "Family Team". 🙂

The Source of Inspiration!

The documentaries are presented by Doctor Javid Abdelmeneim - I will refer to him as Dr Javid - who had become concerned about the differences in achievements he was noticing in boys and girls. What concerned him the most about his observations was how girls in general seemed to underestimate themselves whilst boys on the whole overestimated themselves. His study and knowledge of child physiology demonstrates how until a child hits puberty that boys and girls of the same height and build are of equal strength. So why do girls seem to feel boys are so much stronger? The whole documentary is an experiment led by Dr Javid with one class of seven years olds for a term in a Primary School on the Ilse of Weight. He used the parallel class as a control and his aim was to see if a few simple changes to expand both girls and boys visions of what they are both capable of achieving would make a difference and improve their self-image. 🙂

How stable an individual is and how well balanced their self-esteem is as an adult is centred on the self-image that they create as a child. Please note here that because childhood is very much a learning process and children literally come from nothing they have no preconceived ideas about anything, thus their self-image is largely dictated by how others around them, especially the key adults in their life, treat them. The important factor here is that even some adults still find it difficult not to allow the opinion of others to influence how they see themselves; so for a child it is vitally important that the key adults around them help them to build a really positive self-image. As someone who had a self-image that was through the floor as a child and teenager this area of development is very close to my heart. Through sheer determination I dramatically improved my self-imaged thus turned my self-esteem around. I really don't want anyone else to severely lack the confidence that I initially lacked as a result of a poor self-image. 🙂

Want to read more? Visit my blog to read the full length version of this article.

Author Bio:

My name is Paula-Elizabeth and I am a Montessori trained Child-Education Expert. My passion is Child Education within the home; hence, this is where I've focused my career. Therefore, in addition to my education I also have a lot of practical experience. Like Maria Montessori I am acutely observant and my observations and reflections lead me to a lot of wisdom. My website is: www.paulaelizabeth.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender Neutral: Based on the #BBC Documentary "No More Boys and Girls"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What this means and how it translates to the success of your "Family Teams" to make an equal world for boys and girls. by Paula-Elizabeth Jordan I was inspired to write this article after a conversation with one of my closest friends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Marilena Moriconi, Notre Dame For All

IT was with great interest that I read last month's Agenda article from my former neighbour, Liz Cameron, defending the admissions policy of Scotland's last state-funded single-sex school, Notre Dame High in Glasgow.

I have much in common with Baillie Cameron: we both lived on Byres Road for years; both come from ordinary working-class families; both attended Notre Dame High; and like her father, my uncle was a hard-working, talented piano tuner.

But here our similarities end.

I believe Baillie Cameron unfairly misrepresents the reasons why hundreds of parents, like myself, consider the time has come for our local secondary school to open its doors to all children, regardless of their gender.

Baillie Cameron attended Notre Dame High decades ago, calling it a haven for girls of different backgrounds. If she walks into most Glasgow schools - including Notre Dame Primary just down the road - she will also find a haven for children of different backgrounds: of many different cultures, faiths/no faith, languages, needs, social-economic background and, crucially, of both genders. Notre Dame Primary is a flourishing, inclusive learning community where children do not experience state discrimination until the doors of their local High School are firmly slammed shut on half of them - just because of gender.

Baillie Cameron, to use her own words, "wilfully ignores" the fact that preventing children from accessing education solely because of their gender can be nothing other than gender discrimination. If keeping children out of a state-funded school based on gender isn't discrimination, then what exactly is it? She argues that, by excluding boys, Notre Dame High helps girls from under-privileged areas. She overlooks the fact that if Notre Dame High were to accept boys, under-privileged boys would also have access to the school. Furthermore, it is not true that all children from Notre Dame Primary come from affluent families: one in five pupils at Notre Dame Primary are entitled to free school meals, significantly higher than many neighbouring primary schools.

Baillie Cameron appears to believe that gender is so fundamentally divisive that a single-gender education is the only way for girls to achieve equality. In 21st century Scotland, surely the best way to teach our children about inclusion, appreciating diversity, and treating everyone as equals, is for them to learn and grow together? That means pulling down gender barriers, not building them. My 11-year -old daughter is baffled by the "boy ban". In her word: "Why can't my brothers go to the High School too? Aren't boys and girls equal?" What lessons does the single-gender policy of Notre Dame High School teach our children?

To suggest that Notre Dame High would be ruined if it became co-educational is doing a disservice to the skills and professionalism of staff at the school, as if they would be unable to successfully teach boys and girls together like every other secondary in Scotland. When no other local authority in Scotland deems it necessary or appropriate, why is Glasgow sacrificing children's equality for what amounts to no more than all-girls nostalgia?

I think back to when Liz Cameron was my neighbour. My sisters and I attended Notre Dame High; we lived in the West End but were an ordinary single-parent family who were far from affluent. We were lucky to be educated locally, together, but what if we had been boys? Would we have been undeserving of Notre Dame High? Would it have been right to exclude us?

In 2018 we want all children to succeed. Notre Dame High should be a place "where future generations" of all children are allowed to flourish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Agenda: We must pull down gender barriers in schooling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Marilena Moriconi, Notre Dame For All IT was with great interest that I read last month's Agenda article from my former neighbour, Liz Cameron, defending the admissions policy of Scotland's last state-funded single-sex school, Notre Dame High in Glasgow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abbey Road's Women in Music - Olga FitzRoy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Mother's Day right around the corner, we decided we wanted to shine a light on some of the fantastic women working in the music industry and the incredible work that they're doing each and every day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A rainy farming town is a place as good as any to recognise the gendered judgments of worth afflicting women everywhere

The town of Robertson in the southern highlands of New South Wales is a place of verdant pastures, morning mists and an unexpected battlefront in the war against the patriarchy.

With its fertile soil and frequent heavy rain, "Robbo" - as the locals call it - is potato country. Yes, this town celebrates its produce in the traditional Australian way; an infamous "Big Potato" monument squats by the roadside. But it's this year's "Potato Race" - a popular highlight of the annual Robbo agricultural show - that's obliged the town into an awkward conversation about its own deference to structural sexism. The competition to run the fastest with a sack of potatoes has traditionally male and female divisions. This year, the prize money for the men was posted at $1,000. For the women, it was $200.

It is the way with country towns worldwide that wherever there is local injustice, there's a plucky local girl who stands up to call it out. Robertson's Betty Cooper is Melanie Tait, the daughter of the owner of the General Store, now a journalist for the ABC and occasional writer for the Guardian. Melanie's so local that her father himself owns the Big Potato, but her hometown roots and tuber loyalty aren't enough to override her feminist conscience. So she's set up a crowdfunding campaign to at least equalise the prize money through donations. As of this morning, her fundraising has outstripped that for the original men's event - and, indeed, may now have created the richest potato race, for either gender, in the world.

The response from organisers since? To suddenly remember that the men's race is an "open race" - if one, conspicuously, without a handicap.

It's not, of course, really about how many potatoes you're counting, or about any gendered value set endemic to a rainy farming town in New South Wales. It's a pattern of intersecting decisions that culminate - with bias, but without malice - into the omnipresent cultural message that women's efforts are of lesser worth.

Anyone who saw the ABC's recent broadcast of the excellent BBC two-parter "No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?" would now be aware of the insistent cultural instruction that foists divisive and destructive gendered stereotypes on developing children. Of particular concern - and surprise - to the programme's presenter was how solidly children as young as seven were affected by messages that devalued women's work, and even their expectations of reward. Very few people - not loving parents, kind teachers or close-knit communities - develop deliberate strategies to encourage boys to be angry and domineering, or girls to have no confidence. Yet again and again, decisions made without addressing gender biases reaffirm those biases to the detriment of all.

Prize-money campaigner Melanie Tait has attended the Robertson Potato Race from the time she was a child. "That the prize money is so unequal makes me so disappointed," she told me, "Disappointed for the woman who wins. Disappointed for the young girls watching a huge deal being made of the men's race. Disappointed for the fans of the race who would love to see the women's race valued as much as the men's."

Yes, it's just a potato race. But the arguments - that the original sponsorship money was unequal because the "open race" was more high profile, and the men's race was merely more high profile because, um, men race with more potatoes - are the same ones always made across professional men's and women's sport, as well as their broader cultural cachet, as well as their opportunities for promotion, and their pay-packets. In any sport, it is extraordinary to see the argument made that competitiveness is understood on a sole single metric of physical strength. Presumably, that demands an end to all different weight classes of boxing, and henceforth every race in a pool or track should ever be the one same, universal length. If human physical difference made sport any less entertaining, logic concludes we would only ever watch one sport.

It's unsurprising that a woman working in the Australian media would feel a particular affront at gendered shenanigans in her home town. Gendered judgments of worth afflict women across their professional lives. An industry-wide survey of media pay made in Australia as recently as 2016 discovered "women sitting next to men, in the same job, at the same level, and being paid significantly less. Several senior female managers are paid less than their male subordinates." Spokesperson for the study, Tracey Spicer, illuminated some despair-worthy figures: even "in the female-dominated workplaces of magazine and periodical publishing, there's still a 12.9% gender pay gap. It's 23.2% in newspapers and 21.8% in broadcasting."

Across other industries and leadership positions, the structural disadvantage to women is consistent. An index of women's underrepresentation in leadership positions compiled by Women on Boards makes sobering reading for anyone trying to convince themselves the need for an equalisation project has passed.

It hasn't, which is why the fight for equality has to be brought to the very sites that broadcast the unfair messaging, whether it's the local potato race or the very infrastructure of our broader cultural institutions. Anyone still doubting women's strength - to take on competitive potato racing or anything else - need only consider that the fight is still going, and feminism is still here.

* Van Badham is a Guardian Australia columnist
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's just a potato race. But it shows a familiar pattern of gender inequality | Van Badham

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A rainy farming town is a place as good as any to recognise the gendered judgments of worth afflicting women everywhere The town of Robertson in the southern highlands of New South Wales is a place of verdant pastures, morning mists and an unexpected battlefront in the war against the patriarchy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kids says the darnedest things. Like "men are better at being in charge", "men are stronger" and girls are "pretty, lipstick, dresses, love hearts".

These words come straight from the mouths of the kids at the centre of a surprisingly-controversial two-part BBC documentary, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?.

The series follows Dr Javid Abdelmoneim, as he joins a class of Year Three children to figure out what happens when you change the way the boys and girls are traditionally treated.

The aim is to balance out academic achievement across subjects and see what impact treating a classroom of 7-year-olds completely equally would have on the way they see the world - and themselves.
READ MORE:
* Noah Wyle on the juggernaut train that took him to ER and beyond
* Pod-perfect: five pods not to miss
* ANZ no longer enforcing gender-specific uniforms
"It's really relevant to challenge what we might think are, how can I put it, immovable challenges. The things we think we don't have control over, like that innate control of what it's like to be male or female," Abdelmoneim, who works as a medical doctor, said from London.

"We always just assume 'boys will be boys', and 'girls will be girls'. So to do [the experiment] at that age where they are just starting to get an idea of themselves as individuals, and they are really open to new ideas and new ways of doing things, it's really fun."

In actual fact, as the experts prove early on in the documentary, there is no physical difference between the male and female brain. But the footage captured of the children showed there was a big gap between the way the children thought about what it means to be a boy or a girl. From why boys shouldn't cry to what jobs are "women" jobs", the children were frank with their opinions.

"You could see already the ideas they had in them, of what it means to be a boy or girl...it really surprised me," Abdelmoneim said.

"It's quite an affirmative school, they don't treat the children as units to process - they treat them as young individuals to nourish and develop. There were affirmative statements painted on the walls, so I really thought we wouldn't find anything, like, 'ugh, this is going to be a bit of a dud'. And then there were the interviews with the children, and all these ideas came out. You only had to scratch the surface and they were there.

"It just goes to show how we think none of us have these attitudes, and yet here they are quite firmly being imprinted on these young minds."

Working with the children, parents and their school - including teacher, Mr Andre, whose habit of calling girls "love" and boys "mate" had to be publicly shamed out of him by his students - the crew soon realised the messages encouraging these thoughts in children were hard to escape.

"They are are everywhere, saying, basically, that boys and girls are different, and can't achieve as the other can. 'Boys don't cry', 'mummy's little soldier', 'daddy's little princess', 'aren't I pretty'. And I think they amount to something quite significant, especially when you listen to these 7-year-olds give you their opinions on what it means to be a boy or a girl.

"At the end of the day, there's no need to throw up our hands and give up, and say ' well, that's just biology' - that is what we are trying to say with this project."

The premise of conducting psychological tests on kids for television is not new - The Secret Life of ... series has drawn it out to great reception from viewers.

However, No More Boys and Girls sparked some criticism before it even screened in the UK. While the show's title might suggest the children are being asked to think about their gender, but in reality, the experiment was more about taking it out of the conversation altogether.

"There was a little bit of 'why can't you just let girls be girls' and 'why can't you just let boys be boys' kind of attitudes, and reaction," the host recalled of the critique. "But actually, this isn't about stopping X and Y doing A and B, it's about letting each child have the fullest opportunities of play and development.

"Your daughter wants to play with dolls? Great, but also give her the chance to play with Lego, too. Every child should be given every opportunity. So when you pigeonhole your children...that's not allowing your child their fullest development. And that's what the program is about. It's not about taking things away, it's about giving as much to each child."
No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? concludes on Vibe on February 18 at 8.30pm.
- Stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The TV experiment that turned kids gender free

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids says the darnedest things. Like "men are better at being in charge", "men are stronger" and girls are "pretty, lipstick, dresses, love hearts". These words come straight from the mouths of the kids at the centre of a surprisingly-controversial two-part BBC documentary, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In August 2017, BBC Two aired a two-part series looking at the role of gender equality in Primary education, with much of the action taking place at Lanesend Primary School on the Isle of Wight. Here, IMS editor James Cain and programme star (and Lanesend leader of learning for Years 3 and 4) Graham Andre discuss how attitudes towards gender have changed at the school.

Last year you featured in the BBC Two programme 'No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?' - how did Lanesend Primary become involved with the project?

Well James, the school received an email in November of last year with details of a documentary project that Outline Productions wanted to film, based on the excellent 'gender-neutral' approach to education that has been so effective in Sweden. My head asked if I would be interested, and not knowing much about gender-neutral teaching and the impact it can have on our children, I said yes. We had several visits from the production team with interviews, filming, and so on. Then, in February 2017, they contacted us to say that they would like to work with us. It felt a little like winning the lottery.

As someone who strives to be a 'gender-neutral champ', what do you think can be gained by making schools more gender-neutral?

From my own experience - and I am a novice at this compared to many others - it can have a huge impact on children and their life choices. We don't want boys and girls to think that they can only pursue typically 'male' or 'female' careers, when we could have the next top male ballet dancer or female scientist. I have also seen it give the girls in my class a greater confidence to speak out, which is something that's big in the news at the moment, and it has allowed my boys to better express their emotions; although this is still a work in progress. The expectations of boys not to cry or show emotions other than anger are ingrained even at the age of seven.

Tell us about the key changes you've made after being involved with No More Boys and Girls.

The main change has to be my own expectations and language. My use of terms of endearment were highlighting that there were differences between the boys and girls every time I used one. With girls it was that they were "sweet", and boys a "mate". Luckily, it wasn't as hard as I thought to change my language, and I have not seen a difference in my relationship with the children, which I thought it would impact. I now also plan looking at gender within topics. For examples, when we did India we looked at the roles of men and women in India, and with Harry Potter we looked at strong female individuals such as JK Rowling and Emma Watson.

A promotional still for No More Boys and Girls, with presenter Dr Javid Abdelmoneim (foreground) and Graham Andre (background).

What are the main tips you'd give to schools looking to concentrate on gender equality?

My first tip would be to do it! It has such an impact on our children; real progress comes from girls growing in confidence and be able to speak up when they are not happy with something, or boys being able to talk about their emotions and knowing that this is alright. These are things that need to be ingrained in our children to allow them to be better adults, and then hopefully their children will benefit from this and we can have a more gender equal society.

I would start simply by looking at language used by teachers and TAs. Use of the positive gender messages is a small thing, but that constant exposure to them does have an effect. I would then start to look at literature - do you have a good selection of books that challenge the usual gender stereotypes? Be sure to challenge storytelling. Fairy tales are great for this; is it right that Sleeping Beauty is kissed by a handsome prince and is then expected to marry him without getting to know him first? What does this tell our children?

On social media you're very keen to point out examples of everyday sexism. What can teachers do to prepare pupils for this?

Want to receive cutting-edge insights from leading educators each week? Sign up to our Community Update and be part of the action!

It's funny, James. Before taking part in the documentary it wasn't something I thought about, or realised had such an impact on us. From clothing to toys, literature, adverts, media, films... they all have a message. This is starting to change, and great organisations such as Let Toys be Toys and WomenEd are having a huge influence on this. Plus, celebrities such as Robert Webb - please read his excellent book How Not To Be a Boy - and Russell Howard are raising awareness, but we need everybody to be on board and realise things must change if we want the best for future generations. Share good and bad examples of everyday sexism with pupils, let them talk about it. What can we do to make a change? Get them writing to toy stores, clothing shops, local MPs... apply pressure and make a change. If you can, make it relevant for your children - they will want to make a difference. There are some useful resources from a group of gender-neutral collaborators on Twitter that we can link to.

How are you going to be developing gender neutrality and equality throughout 2018?

I want to continue to spread the word through conferences, teachmeets, blogs and Twitter - it is something that I have grown very passionate about. My dream would be to have gender-neutral teaching as a part of our school curriculum. It should be taught as part of literacy, numeracy, Science, DT, PE... it should become part of the fabric of the school. I would love to create a gender-neutral scheme of work that could be used with children from EYFS to Year 6. I am going to pretty busy I think, James!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovate My School - No more boys and girls? [Interview]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In August 2017, BBC Two aired a two-part series looking at the role of gender equality in Primary education, with much of the action taking place at Lanesend Primary School on the Isle of Wight. Here, IMS editor James Cain and programme star (and Lanesend leader of learning for Years 3 and 4) Graham Andre discuss how attitudes towards gender have changed at the school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Step into the classroom to help the next generation discover exciting and diverse career opportunities

sk a seven-year-old "what do you want to do when you grow up?" and you'll get an answer built on very limited experience. But unless children are exposed to a wide range of options how can they know what opportunities exist that might interest them?

The lack of awareness of primary school children of the full spectrum of careers is highlighted in a new study, Drawing the Future. Carried out for the organisation Education and Employers, the conclusion is that more of us need to go into primary schools to share our experiences of the world of work.

When I was a child, the boys would typically answer that they wanted to be train drivers, and the girls would say nursing. Those were the expected answers and I'm sure I (briefly) complied. Such answers also highlight another problem: even by the age of seven gender stereotyping has kicked in. Few girls, even now, would probably admit to wanting to be astronauts, or boys to be nurses.

Judging by this survey, it seems to be a global phenomenon. Children don't know enough about the world of work to have realistic ideas of what jobs exist, but they have absorbed enough to believe there is "men's work" and "women's work". The study asked children aged seven to 11 years old to draw and describe what they wanted to be when they grew up. Their free text descriptions were coded into one of 69 possible occupations.

The results are illuminating if slightly depressing. By the age of seven it was clear that the jobs chosen reflected standard gendered ideas. In the UK, in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), four times as many boys wanted to become engineers as did girls. Twice as many boys as girls saw science as their chosen future, while girls were four times more likely than boys to want to be vets, and more than twice as likely to want to be doctors.

Perhaps those of us in the sector should be encouraged by the finding that STEM careers in general were viewed favourably, with vet being the third most popular choice, and scientist seventh. Nevertheless, nothing in STEM was as well regarded as sport, with boys and girls most likely aspiring to be a sportsman or woman - the most popular option by more than ten percentage points.

Regardless of the likelihood of nearly a quarter of our primary school children going on to be sports personalities, these results suggest that genuine diversity across the STEM sector is not likely to be fixed anytime soon. The current situatuion in engineering, for instance, is neatly summed up in the Institution of Engineering and Technology's phrase " 9% is not enough " - the percentage of women in the engineering workforce. If this is to be changed, active steps must be taken.

As last summer's BBC programme No more Boys and Girls: can our Kids go Gender Free? demonstrated, thinking hard about the teacher-pupil interaction can quite rapidly make a difference. Let the girls get their hands on puzzles to encourage their spatial awareness and, unsurprisingly, their ability mentally to rotate shapes increases.

But if the teacher chooses to give them dolls or water-play instead, they will remain less competent at such puzzles than boys who get to do the practice. And, if the girls consequently end up less able to visualise things in three dimensions, by the time they make genuine career choices they may well feel engineering is beyond them - a view encouraged by a teacher who spots their weakness in this direction.

The main thrust of this most recent report, though, isn't to have a go at teachers - or parents, nor even the media - for imposing stereotypes. The report's constructive solution is to enable children to meet people from very different careers. So if, for instance, a female engineer - or a male vet - walks into the classroom and talks about their own work, it can have a very positive effect, changing awareness and expectations.

Education and Employers operates both the Inspiring the Future and Inspiring Women initiatives that bring people from all walks of life and at every level of seniority into the classroom, to share their experiences and concrete facts. Such activities can only have a beneficial impact on children's knowledge and awareness. As a bonus, it may help familiarise teachers with a broader range of career opportunities. If we are to ensure all children get better informed about careers and opportunities from an early age, more such initiatives are needed.

You can help by signing up to get involved. Whatever your level of educational attainment, Education and Employers would love to hear from you. The only commitment is a single school visit a year: not a big ask for most of us, but it could make a the world of difference to a future engineer ... or astronaut.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diversity starts in schools - children need to see a wider range of careers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Step into the classroom to help the next generation discover exciting and diverse career opportunities sk a seven-year-old "what do you want to do when you grow up?" and you'll get an answer built on very limited experience. But unless children are exposed to a wide range of options how can they know what opportunities exist that might interest them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Weekend Special with Gina Rippon on gender stereotyping by Radio Sputnik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On today's edition of our 'Weekend Special' programme our guest is Professor Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist, Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Neuroimaging, at Aston University in Birmingham. And today we shall be talking about fighting gender stereotyping. Currently we are observing a pronounced gender-neutral approach manifesting itself more often in all walks of life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Raise a Sweet Son in an Era of Angry Men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The author and television personality writes about all the angry men, and the young son she is raising to be sweet and compassionate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he tech industry's gender imbalance is no secret - only 17% of technology specific jobs are held by women. Projects to counter the problem, from conferences to mentorship programmes, are becoming widespread but are usually aimed at women already embarking on careers. Could we be doing more to close this gap during childhood?

There is overwhelming evidence that our early years are crucial in shaping how we see the world and our place in it. From as early as 10 or 11, children already have strong ideas about their gender roles. According to Elle Boag, a social psychologist at Birmingham City University, children as young as seven may have ideas about the different types of job men and women should do.

Factors influencing this are multiple and varied. For example, critics have claimed that gender specific toys can shape girls ' career ambitions, while parents and teachers also play a major role in influencing children's career choices.

A study by the Institution of Engineering and Technology found parents' outdated perceptions of jobs for men and women are discouraging girls from pursuing a future in the science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) sector. The research showed that parents were more likely to recommend careers in caring and education for girls.

"We expect boys to be good at maths and PE, even though there's no biological predisposition there, and girls to be more creative or caring," said Boag.

She believes it's difficult for us to avoid doing this, even when we're aware of it, because of how the human brain works. We create so-called schemas - patterns of repeated behaviour that allow children to explore and express developing ideas and thoughts through their play and exploration - as a way of categorising and understanding the world.

Breaking convention

Projects targeting children at primary and nursery level are still thin on the ground. The biggest nationwide scheme is the government funded Stem ambassadors, which aims to provide children with role models in science and technology. Stem ambassadors will visit schools to give talks, join in with lessons, or work with teachers and governors to help improve the way Stem is delivered in class.

"We really have to push the message that women do these jobs. Children think Stem isn't for girls because they don't see girls doing it," says Helen Heggie, director of StemFirst, the Stem ambassador hub for Lancashire and Cumbria.

Heggie works with teachers to raise awareness of the lack of women in tech, however there's no guarantee all teachers will be actively looking to address this, or even be aware of the issue. The other main problem is that these programmes, as well as other popular initiatives such as code clubs, are extracurricular. "Often teachers just can't fit it in," says Heggie.

Other smaller initiatives include the Wise (Women in Science and Engineering) campaign's People Like Me programme. Based around research showing girls are more likely to create and articulate their self-identity using adjectives than boys - who tend to talk about themselves in terms of what they do, using verbs - it aims to teach Stem in a more descriptive manner.

A 2014 report published by Wise (PDF) claims this is important because Stem careers education has focused on what these professionals "do" rather than describing the qualities needed to succeed. It's hoped this will encourage girls to match their own attributes to those needed in science and technology careers.

Social enterprise Stemettes promotes Stem to girls as young as five in a fun, creative way with "hackathons" and networking games. "We hear a lot of girls say they're not good at maths, or they think it's a boys' thing," says founder Anne Marie Imafidon. "The hacks are the most popular - they get to code something themselves, and that sense of achievement is very powerful. You don't get that creativity playing with a doll."

What can parents do to help?

There are still steps parents can take to encourage Stem learning at home through the toys they buy their children. Research by the IET found 31% of Stem toys are listed as "for boys", compared with just 11% for girls. Manufacturers are actively trying to address this imbalance - newly-released toys aimed at girls include engineering game Goldieblox and FurReal toy pets which children code themselves, as well as new Lego kits geared towards girls.

Many cartoons still lean towards lazy stereotyping - think Dexter in his laboratory with his sister in the background. But Heggie has been involved in developing a new CBeebies programme, Bitz & Bob, with a girl engineer as the main character. "It's designed to show pre-school children that girls can do science and problem-solving," she says.

Industry experts also recommend parents and teachers educate themselves about the breadth and variety of tech jobs out there and try to understand the skills involved. "Most of today's jobs didn't exist 15 years ago," says Amali de Alwis, CEO of Code First Girls. "Many of them require analytical thinking, but also creative problem solving. We often don't realise that creativity and logic go hand in hand, and push children down one route or the other."

She also believes that coding should be compulsory in schools the same way learning a second language is. "Technology is part of our culture now, so if girls can't speak its language, how are they going to be future leaders?"

A lot of attention has been given to the trend of gender neutral parenting, but Boag is sceptical about how useful this is. She worries it may just confuse children, especially once they start school and realise other people haven't been raised in the same way. "It's better to let children be children, and allow them to play with anything they want," she says. "Encourage their interests."
Looking for a job? Browse Guardian Jobs or sign up to Guardian Careers for the latest job vacancies and career advice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Closing the tech gender gap starts in childhood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he tech industry's gender imbalance is no secret - only 17% of technology specific jobs are held by women. Projects to counter the problem, from conferences to mentorship programmes, are becoming widespread but are usually aimed at women already embarking on careers. Could we be doing more to close this gap during childhood?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent BBC series, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?, examines how adults treat children differently based on their gender and how this may affect equality in adulthood. One particular segment caught my attention. It documents how adults engage with young children at playtime and how they (unconsciously) influence gender-stereotyped play. Both men and women offer the girl soft or nurturing toys (a pink dolly or fuzzy bear) for role-play, while they offer the boy complex toys such as a form fitter, a multi-sensory rattle, or a puzzle game. Without even realizing it, they are perpetuating stereotypes that girls are quiet, soft, and caring, while boys are dominant, hard, and problem solvers. Such stereotypes often linger into adulthood.

The BBC series struck a chord. It reminded me of past office experiences where female co-workers were asked to complete "office housework," tasks unrelated to the scope of their responsibilities - ordering food for an internal meeting, planning an office baby shower, leading an office cleanup, or even loading and starting the office dishwasher, to name a few - the assumptions apparently being that women perform these tasks better than men, or enjoy them.

If we are to have truly diverse and inclusive workplaces, then we must be more conscious of how our behavior affects the people around us. The suggestions below are not difficult steps to behave in a neutral, non-gender-biased way and move beyond traditional norms into the reality of a workplace where women are earning more advanced degrees than men and are increasingly being tapped for leadership roles.

Be thoughtful about assigning tasks

Think back to your last meeting. Who was asked to take notes or order food? Was it a woman? Was that part of her job, or did someone perhaps ask her because of a bias that "women take better notes"? Before assigning roles and responsibilities to team members, think about the tasks involved and why you ask a particular person to perform them. This is a first step in making decisions consciously and without bias.

On the other hand, if others often ask you to perform tasks that aren't part of your role and that feel gender-biased, speak up. It's possible the requestor is simply unaware of the potential for bias. Alternatively, suggest someone better suited - for example, a colleague known for finding great local food delivery sources.

If you often raise your hand to "help" (as many women are inclined to do), be aware that doing so could sustain such a cycle of gender-biased requests.

Don't assume you know where people's interests lie

Women and men alike enjoy travel, adventures, politics, movies, architecture, sports, fashion, and more. Interest depends on the individual, not the individual's gender. Yet social norms often dictate our conversations: for example, people expect women like to talk about fashion, family, pregnancy, weddings, decorating, or shopping and that men like to talk about sports or home improvement. A certain brother-in-law I know would disagree; he can't name most NFL teams, and has no interest in doing so.

Connecting on common interests is at the heart of building relationships. Don't box others into topics based on their gender and, in groups, be aware of whether people are engaged and adjust topics so that everyone feels included. In fact, one of the best strategies for remaining open and flexible in communication is to listen and ask questions.

Invite everyone to play

Similarly, hobbies and activities are not gender-specific. Participating in the office football fantasy league has introduced me to a group of football lovers with whom I wouldn't otherwise interact much. We have bonded over banter and bad rankings. Encourage everyone to take part in such activities, and make sure those who join aren't made to feel uncomfortable simply because of their gender. Another good way to include everyone is to plan team outings where members take turns choosing an activity for the group. Don't limit "inclusiveness" to your co-workers, either - if developing relationships with clients is part of your role, invite all to take part in a golf game or attend a Broadway show.

Expect excellence from all

Studies have shown that women are successful across all levels of traditionally male-dominated STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. Moreover, a recent study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that companies with more women in the C-suite tend to be more profitable - in part because of diversity in thought, opinion, and perspective.

An easy rule of thumb is to expect the same level of engagement and excellence from everyone, regardless of gender. Don't make assumptions about life or career goals; for example, don't think that women aren't working as diligently as men toward their next raise or promotion, whether or not they are the sole or primary earner in the household, or assume the mothers on your team are not as driven about their careers. Rather, expect that everyone can do the jobs for which they were hired, that performance will vary by person, and that everyone wants to succeed and is open to new challenges. At the same time, make your career goals known to your manager. If you are working towards a promotion, make sure you have proven you are ready.

As a child, I built forts, played with Legos, and created cities in the sand for my toy cars and trucks - and my Barbies were strong, independent career women. And I'll admit, as a grown-up I'm not the best note taker, coffee maker, or party planner. These tasks have never come naturally to me, and I am not necessarily interested in performing them. Fortunately, I have not found these to be expectations for me in my current firm.

If gender continues to influence the tasks, projects, or responsibilities we assign to employees, we are doing them and the organization a disservice and fueling a perception that women are not as capable of performing more strategic work. Rather, we need to help our co-workers build different skills and grow professionally into great leaders.

The gender-stereotyping cycle needs to stop. Women and men are equal in their drive, motivations, and interests in acceptance and performance. As the next generation of leaders, we can - and need to - lead by example.
Terri Mackay is a Senior Marketing Manager at West Monroe Partners. With over 8 years of experience in the financial, technology and consulting industries, Terri merges data, digital, and design to implement effective marketing strategies.
Ellevate Network is a global women's network: the essential resource for professional women who create, inspire and lead. Together, we #InvestInWomen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
​Leading from the Next Generation: Four Simple Ways to Stop Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent BBC series, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?, examines how adults treat children differently based on their gender and how this may affect equality in adulthood. One particular segment caught my attention. It documents how adults engage with young children at playtime and how they (unconsciously) influence gender-stereotyped play.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear Reader,

Do you enjoy sports? Do you enjoy watching, or participating?

Have you thought about the cultural assumptions that lie underneath your sport of choice?

I love to consider what the future might hold. I'm imagining, now, a society where splitting sports by gender is considered as eyebrow-raising as doing so by colour. In this society, sport is built on meritocracy. Pupils are taught PE together, and no 'sport' is 'for' one gender or another. Boys play netball with girls without wearing skirts (or with, who cares) or accidentally having sex with each other in the changing room (alright, that does occasionally happen). Girls play rugby with boys without continually weeping and declaring that they bruise like a peach. There are fervent female cricket pundits as well as male and everyone puts their clothes on to play beach volleyball. People generally get on with running around, throwing things, jumping and catching without stopping for pause about the genital areas of those around them.

Sounds both utopian and desirable, doesn't it? But what led us to start segregating sport in the first place, and why might we continue to need it?

1. Boys play rough and girls need protecting. While this is clearly rubbish, it is true that sports can be dangerous and promote competitiveness, aggressiveness and violence if not handled properly. That is, if rules aren't enforced and players aren't taught to deal with their emotions effectively. This boils down to an argument about how we teach PE in schools - no segregation needed. Research suggests that parents treat boys and girls differently from birth - this fascinating experiment shows that parents consistently overestimate boys' physical abilities and underestimate girls, even when babies are under a year old.

2. Different sports suit the temperaments of different sexes better. This is an extended version of the first argument, and presupposes that men and women like or are good at different things: for example netball vs basketball, which are seen as 'suited' to women and men respectively. Netball evolved from a specific version of basketball for women;
'from the start, it was considered socially appropriate for women to play netball; netball's restricted movement appealed to contemporary notions of women's participation in sports, and the sport was distinct from potential rival male sports' (Wikipedia).
One would hope we now understand that this is nonsense. However, traditions persist. The 2012 Olympics still featured sports that were gendered: synchronised swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for women, boxing, wrestling and baseball for men. 2016 - a full 98 years after women got the vote in the UK - will be the first year both women and men compete in all sports. But this is the top of the pyramid. Further down, funding, attitudes and ideas will take time to shift. More to the point, this means both men and women have a chance to compete - but crucially, not against each other, because....

3. Men and women are different, physiologically, and it is unfair to pit them against each other. Ah, this is the rub. Should we segregate sports so that women 'have a fair chance', or are we going further down the road of discrimination by doing this? Whether you believe this or not tends to reflect whether you think women's bodies are different enough to men's (and by different, in terms of sport, we mean inferior) to need a different competition space entirely. There is an uncomfortable parallel here with race: some believe that some racial profiles are genetically, inherently better at some sports, and so should compete separately to others. If we decide this is nonsense, and allow everyone to compete together, then the worry is that women will be knocked out of the top spots altogether, and end up even more under-represented than they are now. Should we allow this to happen - which seems to align with a 'morally fair' argument - or should we do something like this, which is a mathematical adjustment exercise to compare runners' times allowing for both gender and age?

Some say women's bodies are catching up, because evolution no longer dictates that they are passive fertility factories, storing fat and resignedly asking men to open jars for them. Others maintain they will never have the same size hearts, percentage body fat, muscle mass and endurance capability as men (there is some research to suggest women have the advantage in the latter, as they may be more efficient overall at converting glycogen to energy). This article looks at the consistency of record-holding by gender, where women seem to stop at 10% lower than men across a variety of fields. It is difficult to predict whether this is a 'diaphragm' (muscular ceiling) or something that will change with time, motivation and an injection of money into training and encouraging women to the same level that men have benefitted from.

However, there is another dimension to this argument: that being male/female is not as binary as we think. You may remember the headlines in 2009 when Caster Semanya was subjected to gender testing (and some very personal abuse) after winning gold at the World Championships. Aside from the moral implications, gender testing is as neither easy or clear-cut as checking for a chromosome. There are plenty of cases of people developing hormonally as one gender when their chromosomes are the opposite, as well as a variety of people that fit neither specification. There are an estimated 1.7% of all people who are 'intersex', with another huge number identifying as transsexual, gender-neutral, or various other gender concepts that are much more complex than M/F. So where does this leave the 'sports by gender' discussion?

As always, your thoughts are most welcome...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Boys and girls can't play together nicely': the lessons of gendered sports - honeypisquared

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Reader, Do you enjoy sports? Do you enjoy watching, or participating? Have you thought about the cultural assumptions that lie underneath your sport of choice? I love to consider...Read the post'Boys and girls can't play together nicely': the lessons of gendered sports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I think of Paul Hollywood, TV's floury-haired fox and staunch upholder of a strong crumb, I think of a man who only ever seems to be one pint of bitter away from turning into your dad hitting the dancefloor at the end of a very long wedding. The Bake Off judge has been all over the tabloids this week - happily, not for wearing a Nazi uniform as fancy dress this time (it was an 'Allo 'Allo!-themed night and he's sorry, OK) - but it was one particular answer in one particular interview that raised the bristles on my broad, lefty, feminista chest. You'll remember that when the Bake Off moved to Channel 4, Hollywood was the only original host to stay with the programme, and for a while, he says, this made him the most hated man in the country. In his defence, he told the Radio Times this week: "I stayed with Bake Off. The girls abandoned it. But I was the one put under siege."

The girls! The girls. Sue Perkins is 48 and Mel Giedroyc is 49. Mary Berry is 82 years old. Instinctively, the word made me wince. Of course it did! Naturally, as a feminist, I hate nice things, and fun. But there was something about this particular utterance of "girls" that stuck in my throat like an overdone sponge. Given that it seemed to carry some criticism of his former colleagues - "abandoned" is hardly a neutral word - it felt loaded. It sounded patronising and possessive. Sadly, I know far less about the inner workings of The Great British Bake Off than I would like to, so it's possible that the show's former stars quite enjoyed being called "the girls", with its connotations of a giggling gang of teenagers, merrily holding hands and skipping through clouds of icing sugar. I know plenty of women of all ages who are perfectly happy to be referred to as girls, and I know plenty of women who would take it as a compliment, and a sign that the night cream is doing what it was sold to do.

But it made me think of the countless times I've been called a "girl" or one of the "girls" by an older man - and it usually is an older man - and the point in my life at which it started to bother me. For a long time, I didn't mind at all, but around the age of 30, it started to become a mild irritant. It is about age and context as much as it is about gender - to be called a "girl" in a work situation feels infantilising to me, because it's a sign of an assumed imbalance of power. It makes me feel as if I'm not on an equal footing. Curiously, I still don't have a problem with "ladies", which for many falls under the same gendered bracket as "girls", but I think that's because it doesn't assume youth and inexperience. It also makes me imagine a suave lounge singer, crooning out their greatest hits, so I'm happy to be the audience for it.

This "girls" conundrum came up again this week at the Girls' School Association's annual conference in Manchester, which must have made any branding for the event tricky. The former children's mental health tsar Natasha Devon said she would not refer to pupils as "girls or ladies" because it is "patronising". She suggested that gendered terms are not useful, and that boys, as much as girls, are constrained by them. There have been some objections to this, and people have howled that it is the snowflake PC brigade getting their gender-neutral underwear in a twist for no good reason.

But those upset by her ideas might be interested in seeking out a fascinating documentary that was on BBC Two in August, called No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? It explored the idea that pupils were treated differently depending on their gender, often unthinkingly. One male primary school teacher called the girls "love" and "darling" and the boys "fella" and "mate". It concluded, fairly convincingly, that it provides a better start for everyone if the language used for girls doesn't imply that they are cute and small and sweet, and the language used for boys doesn't suggest that they are strong and macho and stoic.

Crucially, of course, it's all about context. Any debate around language will never succeed in black-and-white terms because it will always depend on the who, what, when, where and why. Recently, a man walked past me in the street and made himself jump with a loud noise, a noise he had produced from his own body. "Sorry, princess," he said, immediately, and as we passed, both startled, I heard him shout to his friend: "I just popped one off in front of that girl." In that instance, I did not mind being called "girl" or even "princess", not one little bit, because he wasn't patronising me, and he wasn't trying to put me in my place - he was apologising to me for accidentally farting in my vicinity, and in that brief, passing moment, I felt like a princess. It was the funniest thing that happened to me all week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Princess, love, girl - when is a term of endearment not welcome? | Rebecca Nicholson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I think of Paul Hollywood, TV's floury-haired fox and staunch upholder of a strong crumb, I think of a man who only ever seems to be one pint of bitter away from turning into your dad hitting the dancefloor at the end of a very long wedding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is there such a thing as a typical boy or a typical girl? When Jones and Myhill (2004) conducted their study into teacher perceptions of boys and girls the majority said that "the high-achieving girl is a typical girl, and the underachieving boy is a typical boy".

The same teachers also said they believed that boys and girls have equal academic potential. This doesn't compute. The researchers concluded that there has been a "construction of an inherent relationship between gender and achievement".

"How do I get boys into reading?" "What can I use to inspire boys to write?" "What behaviour management strategies work for boys?" These are often asked questions in staffrooms and on social media across the UK. Something has to change if boys are to start matching girls' achievement, but perhaps we don't have to resort to "boy-friendly" resources and teaching methods.

What if it's not necessary to do anything different to help boys achieve? What if we just need to think something different? What if we stopped seeing boys as cartoon caricatures (Dennis the Menace, Horrid Henry, Bart Simpson) and started seeing them as individuals with individual needs? It is bizarre how we quite happily lump half the population into one group and make judgements about ability, behaviour and potential based on that.

The 'underachieving' boy?

Yes, we must ensure that our curriculum doesn't disinterest boys, but we shouldn't feel the need to go to the opposite extreme; making it all about cars, footballers and all that other "boy" stuff that we so glibly believe in. And if you're a female teacher, it doesn't mean you can't teach boys well. We all, male and female teachers alike, must make sure we are not conforming subconsciously to the deep-seated societal biases.

When we analyse data we look at boys and we look at girls and then we make assumptions. What would happen if we dug further? Perhaps it is just a handful of boys who are bringing down the percentages. What's their story? Did one have a lot of time off? Has another been involved in a child protection case? Does one come from a home that has no books? There have got to be other factors besides the fact that they are a boy - find them and tackle those issues. If you try to address problems based on the generalisation that they are a boy, where on earth are you going to start? You've got nothing.

Equal treatment

But boys will be boys, won't they? Only if we let them be. Only if we encourage them to be. Only if almost everything we do is based on a stereotype that allows boys to get away with all the negative things we so unthinkingly associate them with: misbehaviour, disengagement, boisterousness, loudness, and so on.

Rather than seeking out boy-specific ways of teaching, teachers need to treat boys and girls equally and as individuals - and boys should be brought along for the ride. This shouldn't be something teachers do surreptitiously. The boys should be aware that you have high expectations of them and that they aren't going to receive any special treatment because they are a boy. They need to be told what they are capable of and shown truly that to be a boy isn't to be an underachiever.

This construct will take a lot of undoing, but if we truly want our boys to do better at school perhaps we'd better stop working so hard to perpetuate it.
Aidan Severs is an assistant vice principal at a primary school in the North of England. He blogs at ThatBoyCanTeach and tweets @thatboycanteach Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and Instagram, and like Tes on Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Boys will be boys, won't they? Only if we let them be'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is there such a thing as a typical boy or a typical girl? When Jones and Myhill (2004) conducted their study into teacher perceptions of boys and girls the majority said that "the high-achieving girl is a typical girl, and the underachieving boy is a typical boy".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children seem to be subject to gender stereotypes from the moment they start schoolPixabay

When you think of primary school, your mind probably jumps to a place full of children finger-painting, licking crayons, and playing tag at break. They were the golden days, the days of freedom and fun, the days you could gallop across the playground on your imaginary dragon and nobody thought you were weird.

Yet BBC Two documentary 'No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Schools Go Gender Free?' unearthed some alarming points about the way children understand gender, and such discoveries suggest that primary school is not such a place of freedom after all.

"We should be focusing on opening our young people up to the complicated, important discussions of gender"

The show was presented by Dr Javid Abdelmoneim, who believes there is very little difference between the brains of boys and girls. He began by conducting interviews with the children, asking questions such as "are men and women equal?". Every girl but one said boys were "better", with one girl arguing that "men are better at being in charge". Meanwhile, a boy in the class demonstrated some keen political knowledge: boys "get into president easier, don't they?". Appearance was also brought up, with another girl answering "girls are better at being pretty". All pretty worrying findings, particularly given that the kids were just seven years old.

Dr Abdelmoneim's argument is that the problem is one of nurture rather than nature. In an attempt to combat this, he began putting up signs in the classroom that read 'girls are strong' and 'boys are sensitive'; he paid attention to the books recommended to the children, disposing of any that featured submissive female characters or aggressive male ones; and he corrected the way the teacher addressed the children, eliminating 'mate' for boys, 'darling' for girls. Essentially, he focused on all those little parts of everyday life we'd not think twice about.

I can see close similarities between the children in the documentary and my own brother and sister, who are both aged nine. While I've heard my sister talk about how pretty the other girls are, my brother has never mentioned another boy's appearance; instead he is concerned with competing over strength and speed. Obviously, my own experiences are incredibly limited, and Dr Abdelmoneim's study wasn't perfect either; his study is small-scale and focuses on a class of predominantly white children in just one part of the country, so the research needs to be expanded.

This children's book by Lego is one of only a handful that try to subvert prevailing stereotypesInstagram: lettoysbetoys

But this appears to be a national problem that runs right up to the top of society: earlier this year, Theresa May mentioned "boy jobs and girl jobs" in an interview on The One Show. Boys love bins, apparently - it must be a genetic thing. Her comments were particularly bizarre given that she is only the second female prime minister Britain has had; her role should surely be to break down gender stereotypes, not reinforce them. Yet it would seem that the problem is not just present in schools, it's so widespread that it is even being sustained by our leaders.

The findings also speak to nationwide statistics; a poll by analysts Mintel revealed that 44% of children identified jobs like 'plumber, builder or electrician' as 'for boys'. They also linked it to the divide in subject choices, with boys consistently preferring maths, IT and science, and girls widely preferring humanities-based subjects.

Yet the issue of gender in schools remains controversial, and not just because of the impact on children's self-esteem and later life choices. This year, a couple removed their six-year-old child from school because a boy in his class began coming to school wearing a dress. The story hit the national press, and Mr Rowe, the boy's father, was quoted as saying: "Our concerns were raised when our son came back home from school saying he was confused as to why and how a boy was now a girl." Their argument was based on the 'harm' it caused to other children, and the fact that the school had failed to consult all parents. But surely we do far more harm to children by sheltering, rather than exposing them to diversity.

Study after study has shown that polarising gender and attaching stereotypes to children from an early age is damaging to both boys and girls in their later lives; many have linked this to the lack of women in high-power jobs, and the fact that the biggest killer of men under 45 is suicide. So the question remains: would having gender-neutral language in schools go any way to helping create a more equal society?

Ultimately, if it would help to alleviate problems like these, then I'm all in. We should be focusing on opening our young people up to the complicated, important discussions of gender, and embracing different ideas about something that has traditionally been such a polarised issue. From Dr Abdelmoneim's study, at least, it seems that embracing gender-neutrality in schools holds some answers to the very real problem of gender inequality in society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you think of primary school, your mind probably jumps to a place full of children finger-painting, licking crayons, and playing tag at break. They were the golden days, the days of freedom and fun, the days you could gallop across the playground on your imaginary dragon and nobody thought you were weird.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No more boys and girls? | Equality and Human Rights Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But calling for an end to gender-specific products and marketing, subjects and careers is not the same as calling for a 'gender-free' society. It's about opening up opportunities for everyone, giving space for individuals to just be themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gender-neutral teaching is currently at the fore front of research, and is stoking the fires of opinions. As professionals we consider ourselves to be hot on such things as gender stereotyping, and often challenge differing opinions. Or do we just think we do?

Teaching without any (often not known) gender stereotyping is new in the UK, in terms of popular opinion. This is common place however in Scandivania where they have been working to reduce gender stereotyping for almost 20 years, it's even mentioned in their education act (1998).

Sometimes teachers will use certain language towards boys, and towards girls. This of course isn't a deliberate attempt to promote gender stereotypes - but is simply the way society works currently (although we believe that any child can do anything). In my classroom for many years, if a child is crying on me over any situation I will use gender specific language. I considered it to be nurturing if I refer to a girl as sweetie or a boy as buddy in these situations.

However, I've been missing the point massively. Through the use of sweetie I'm implying that the girl needs the comforting of my words more so than the boy, who I just refer to as buddy! It's so true, you feel you need to use soft and lovely words towards an emotional girl, and yet not so much an emotional boy. It is something I haven't thought about as much as I should be. It is common, in schools across the country, to see girls being given more time and space when needed to be comforted in comparison to boys, where they are just expected to get on with it.

Obviously the children can use whatever language they please, but it is about challenging those gender stereotypes whenever they occur. "Only boys can play football," is a very common one heard across the country in a variety of primary schools. Challenging this, and asking why a child believes this can really open up a good discussion. Which will hopefully lead to a differing opinion.

Why is it always the prince rescuing the princess?

Why are the scary and mean characters almost always boys - and the sweet, cute characters girls?

This sort of questioning during any literature study can open up healthy discussion, debate and inspired writing.

There is an assumption really that us educators will always treat children the same way, boy or girl. But honestly, do you actually? If you do, then great! You are a part of the good fight against gender stereotyping, a rare part however! In the UK it is a well known fact that primary education doesn't attract as many male teachers as female. I am lucky enough to work in a school where there is a male in every single year group. This really helps breaking down those gender stereotypes, but doesn't solve the problem. Especially if some of the staff are promoting gender stereotypes. Boys are strong and hard and have to take it on the chin, "Don't you cry boy!" (I'm not sure I've actually heard that, and accept that that is perhaps an extreme example!)

For me when it comes to fighting with the staff's opinions on gender stereotyping, the hardest part is dealing with what's said in the staff room. "Oh god, did you see that boy at break? He is so wet, you'd have thought he'd be used to getting a ball in his face" compared with, "Ah that poor girl, she got the ball right to her face. I hope she's ok."

Staffing opinions need addressing, to a point where they realise what they are saying is wrong. It is true that very subtle language changes can have the most incredible effects.

It's really important for everyone working in primary education to realise it's not about taking opportunities from one gender and giving it to the other, it's about giving children a full chance in life not just half a chance.

I hope that this sparks an opinion or a desire to read more into this area of education, obviously as a teacher I'm always right (!), but if you disagree or have any opinions to add to my growing understanding on this subject comment away.

A friend of mine has written a series of books about a female heroine who uses STEM skills to her advantage. Helping breaking down barriers to a male dominated career choice. Hopefully the below link works for you.

a target="_blank" href=" https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1481485989/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=1481485989&linkCode=as2&tag=rozzy-21&linkId=f5722a82988b718f6ec3c63304e3de89″&gt;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender-neutral teaching is currently at the fore front of research, and is stoking the fires of opinions. As professionals we consider ourselves to be hot on such things as gender stereotyping, and often challenge differing opinions. Or do we just think we do?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
24th Oct 17 | Lifestyle

Paloma Faith is raising her child gender neutral, so what exactly does it involve?

On the high street, baby clothes are still divided by a lot of pink newborn clothes for girls, and blue or green for boys - and what's the harm, you might wonder? There's an argument though, that if we're conforming to gender stereotypes before a child can walk or talk (or before they've even left the womb!) then we're setting them up to accept traditional gender roles throughout their lives too.

Paloma Faith has said she is raising her child, who she gave birth to in December, gender neutral. Speaking to The Mirror at the Q Awards, she explained she wouldn't be dressing them in stereotypical boy/girl colours and will avoid putting pressure on the child's own gender identification. The singer, who hasn't yet revealed the sex of the baby, isn't the only celeb who's doing it - Russell Brand and Gabby Logan have spoken out about raising their children to be 'gender fluid' in the past too.

But what does gender neutral parenting (GNP) involve and should we all be doing it?
What exactly is it?

(Thinkstock/PA)

Raising children in a gender-neutral environment is not about androgyny or being anti-feminine or anti-masculine. There are theories claiming that gender roles are completely learned, and others that gender is a blend of biological and cultural influences, so GNP is about not pushing children into one gender or another, but allowing kids to do what comes naturally and explore - whether that falls into what's typically considered 'girly', 'boyish' or 'somewhere in between'.

"Broadly speaking, gender neutral parenting is about challenging the idea that children need to be defined or divided by an assigned gender category, and the stereotypes attached to these," says consultant clinical psychologist, and author of The Supermum Myth, Dr Rachel Andrew.

"For people who see this as 'anti-masculine' or 'anti-feminine', I think that's the point - this suggests that people have ideas about what masculine or feminine is - and gender neutral parenting is about helping parents to deconstruct these ideas."

In BBC documentary No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? Dr Javid Abdelmoneim explored whether gender-neutral treatment could change how seven-year-olds think (because, he says, that's the age by which children fully identify as a particular gender). Crucially, most of the kids on the programme already had very ingrained, polarised notions of what men and women's roles were, while in the same programme, one of the UK's leading experts in brain imaging and neuroscience revealed there is no such thing as a male or female brain type - instead, it's shaped during childhood.
How do I raise my kids gender neutral?

(Thinkstock/PA)

The trick is to see gender as a fluid scale, rather than 100% masculine or 100% feminine. Consumerism doesn't help though - there's strict gender segregation in clothing, toys and activities for children. And the stereotypes we see in the children's market connect with the inequalities we see in adult life. Some work is being done though - the Let Toys Be Toys campaign is challenging toy and publishing industries to stop 'limiting children's interests' by promoting some toys as only suitable for one sex.

It's not just about toys though, often the language used to talk to girls and boys is different, as is the way they are 'expected' to behave - girls might be called "princess" while boys might be told to be "brave", for example. Gender stereotyping in adults matters too; if they always see their mother washing the dishes and their father mowing the lawn, children pick this up.

"As parents, the messages we give our children are ones that are often life-long," says Dr Andrew. Her advice for parents who want to raise their children in an environment with less gender stereotypes is to be more "self aware".

She says: "Once you think about trying to parent in this way, it can be a real eye-opener. Start by noticing the ways that children are defined by their gender - from clothes and toys to the way people speak or behave towards them. Notice how you behave towards your own child or children, and how this may be affected by gender. Once you notice this, make a choice to try to change the way you behave - just thinking about and noticing can be helpful in making choices about what you want to change."

Sweden is one country addressing the issue. Last year they added a gender-neutral pronoun, "hen" to their vocabulary and one clothing chain there has done away with boys and girls' clothes sections. We should also mention that John Lewis have done a similar thing here, branding their own-label clothing as simply 'boys & girls', rather than one or the other.
is it really so bad if girls want to be 'girls' and boys 'boys'?

(Thinkstock/PA)

As much as letting children be whoever they want to be may sound obvious, it's a contentious topic in the world of parenting. According to a study this year though, gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early in children. It found that before the age of 6, girls were more likely to label boys as "really, really smart" than their own gender, and steer themselves away from games intended for kids with a high intellect. The researchers said that these stereotypes discourage women's pursuit of prestigious careers, like physics and philosophy.

Men and boys suffer as a result of gender stereotyping too, of course. Robert Webb's new book How Not To Be A Boy unpicks the issues with masculinity and femininity growing up, and as he says in his book, not crying, not discussing feelings and being tough, are often established in boys early on. The link between those deeply ingrained societal expectations and the fact that three out of four suicides are by men, can't be ignored.

Just finished reading #hownottobeaboy by Peep Show's Robert Webb. A really powerful 'lifting the lid' of all the things we're (boys) told to be; by our parents, by peers, by the media, and how here, in just one man's example, how he got through all of that to find a real, more authentic self. Boys are supposed to cry, they don't have to like football, they don't have to drink beer, play rough and hide their emotions. The old stereotype of masculinity is dead. But sadly not before it took the lives of so many men and boys.

A post shared by Sean Fox (@seanryanfox) on

GNP isn't about forcing children not to be one way or another. Pink clothing isn't off limits, monster trucks aren't banned - it's about everything being on the table and children being free to play or wear or act whichever way makes them happy. So no, it's not a problem if girl wants to push a buggy around, as long as she's equally encouraged to play doctor, kick a football or build a fort (and grows up to believe she can have three kids and be a CEO if she so wishes).

Let's face it though, with ingrained gender roles everywhere you look, it isn't that easy to raise kids to think otherwise, but the hope of GNP is that they will grow up fighting gender stereotypes instead of accepting them.

"I think it's very difficult to be entirely gender neutral," Dr Andrew says, "however, I do think we can all try to be more aware of these stereotypes and how we reinforce them.

"The biggest potential benefit is that our children grow up knowing that they have a larger array of choices regarding their identity and how they relate to others."

© Press Association 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender neutral parenting: Should we all be raising our kids without stereotypes?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
24th Oct 17 | Lifestyle Paloma Faith is raising her child gender neutral, so what exactly does it involve? On the high street, baby clothes are still divided by a lot of pink newborn clothes for girls, and blue or green for boys - and what's the harm, you might wonder?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether it's the £400,000 that separates Mishal Husain from John Humphrys, or the 74 million miles between the metaphorical markers of Venus and Mars, there is a gulf between the genders. Despite legislation to enforce equality, the reality is that, right from the start, boys and girls are treated differently. Boys like trains, right? Girls like dolls... Before you know it, female students are massively under-represented in the sciences, and worrying numbers of young men think it's OK to shout sexual threats to women on the street in the name of banter. Boys will be boys after all... but what if they weren't?

The first of Doctor Javid Abdelmoneim's two-part BBC Two series looking at the effects of gender stereotyping on young children stated its intent right from the off: nature accounts for very little other than the glaringly obvious, and what society often sees as hard-wired points of difference between men and women can be put down to nurture. Could this lead to a kind of attitudinal architecture that builds inequality into our system from the start? Are these the embers that stoke the furnace in which the glass ceiling is forged?

Taking a class of children born in 2010 (fittingly, the year the Equality Act became law) on the Isle of Wight, Doctor Abdelmoneim aimed to show how these attitudes can be amplified by even the most well-meaning of us, and - more encouragingly - how small changes might have a big impact.

This was, at first, profoundly depressing viewing as seven-year-old girls defined themselves solely in terms of their appearance, and associated attributes such as strength with their male counterparts. However, through a series of baby steps, the children were encouraged to see one another in very different terms. Getting rid of segregated toilets, changing reading habits and decorating the walls with motivational messages ( pictured below) may seem like incidentals, but it appeared to help in informing how these little sponges saw the world. In the longer term, though, could they really prove a useful barrier to the flood of colour-coded communiqués our kids are subjected to?

While there was some progress in the children's outlook, the most dramatic change came when Doctor Abdelmoneim took the children to the playing field to, well... level the playing field. During an experiment to look at the pupils' assessment of their own ability in a test of strength, one girl was left in tears after exceeding her meagre expectations. However, for one of the boys, an inability to perform left him in furious tears. His rage was a visceral reminder that gender bias does both genders a disservice - boys are often left less able to describe their emotions. Unless that emotion is anger, in which case they're like a thesaurus set to "wrath".

The methods applied weren't entirely unproblematic. Asking the pupils to assign a gender to a word, for example, contains an implication that they have to chose one over the other. It doesn't allow for the option of both (or neither), and this may have skewed the impression of how the kids interpreted the world. Also, personal experience has shown me that a daughter's unwelcome predilection for princesses and make-up is not itself a barrier to football skills or outrunning classmates. However, these were necessarily broad strokes in order to analyse what most already suspect to be true, and work out ways to combat it. We know deep down what the fight is; this was talking tactics.

On a positive note, the balance between analysis and sentiment was well struck. While you can't help but feel for the children, the editing stopped well short of any kind of cloying "emotional journey" narrative. There is, though, a strong suspicion that the intensity will be ramped up in the second part. The good doctor was helped in this opener by Graham Andre, a kind and well-meaning teacher who confronted his own bias with an open mind and a willingness to change - not qualities to be underrated. Next week, it's the turn of the pupils' parents, and that is sure to be trickier terrain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls, BBC Two - baby steps lead to great leaps for children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether it's the £400,000 that separates Mishal Husain from John Humphrys, or the 74 million miles between the metaphorical markers of Venus and Mars, there is a gulf between the genders. Despite legislation to enforce equality, the reality is that, right from the start, boys and girls are treated differently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone will have heard of this documentary recently, and if you haven't then go and watch it...now. On BBC iPlayer. I'll wait... Now that you have seen it, this was an excellent, thought-provoking two-part documentary about gender stereotypes and how these stereotypes are formed. Before watching this programme I was very much aware about how...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Separate queues and coat pegs for boys and girls draws an unnecessary dividing line at an early age writes Jane Bradley

When I was in the oldest class at primary school, my teacher, generally a very nice man, called all of us girls to stay behind one break time.

He'd noticed that we had been playing football in the school yard, he said - and it worried him.

We weren't strong enough to play football with the boys, he told us. Then, blushing, he warned us that if we were injured playing football, it might prevent us from having children later in life.

Of course, looking back, it was absolutely ludicrous - though I have no doubt he was doing it with the kindest of motives, if the most insanely misguided medical knowledge. I have no idea why we didn't all run home immediately and tell our parents - and why they didn't kick up the most almighty of rucuses at school. If it happened today, there would be an outcry.

But it was the 80s, we were ten years old and we just listened sagely to what he said and stopped joining in the dangerous sporting activity, returning to our sensible, girlish games of skipping and tig while the boys ran around the football field.

Sexism has come a long way in 30 years. Everyone is very much more aware that it is not acceptable for girls to be banned from a playground football game.

Yet, it still goes on, in the most subtle and unconscious of ways. In adult life, there is still a gender pay gap, while women occupy less than a quarter of UK board positions. Although we might think we have gone a long way towards stamping out sexism, there is still a long way to go.

In my daughter's class at school, the children are already very consciously - on the part of the pupils, but probably quite unconsciously by the teaching staff - divided into boys and girls. The girls hang their coats on one type of coloured peg, the boys on another. When they leave at the end of the day to be delivered to waiting parents, there are two lines - one of girls and one of boys. The reason, the staff have explained to the children, is so it is easier to see who has left and who hasn't, so they split them into two, sending the lines out one at a time.

My friend's son's school does the same when the children are sent into the dining hall for lunch - a boys's line and a girls's line, while the separate peg or cupboard for bags and coats seems endemic throughout the primary school system.

It may all seem harmless and of course one group is not told they are any better than the other, but it draws a dividing line between the genders at an age when it has been proven that can have a damaging effect.

A fascinating documentary series which began on BBC Two last week looked at how seven year old boys and girls view themselves and each other.

In the programme,'No More Boys And Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?' a class of children living on the Isle of Wight were interviewed about their opinions on who was stronger, cleverer, better at games.

The boys constantly had a high opinion of their abilities - yet both sexes regarded the girls as weaker in every respect.

An experiment involving a fairground "strong man" game - where the children had to hit a target with a mallet as hard as possible, proved particularly interesting. The boys were all convinced that they would score 10. Most of the girls, however, were far more conservative, their estimates ranging mainly between two and five.

The presenter explained that at the age of seven, indeed until youngsters reach puberty, there is no physical difference in strength between male and female children. Meanwhile, a brain scan experiment showed that there no such thing as a female or male brain.

Yet the children in the class were all convinced that a discrepency existed - until they played the game and their equal strength became evident. The over-confident boys were distraught, the self-deprecating girls delighted.

When the presenter, Dr Javid Abdelmoneim, investigated how the youngsters were treated, the children were split by gender on a daily basis.

Interestingly, the class's teacher, again a nice man, not unlike my well-meaning teacher of the 80s, constantly drew attention to the difference between girls and boys.

He called the girls "love" and the boys "mate", multiple times a day. They, like children in my own daughter's class, had to hang their coats in separate spaces, splitting them into gender groups from the minute they walked into the classroom.

For six weeks, they were treated the same - playing the same sports, reading the same books and putting their coats in the same cupboard, which was repainted a gender neutral orange.

Interestingly, after the experiment, the difference between the children's self esteem, when scored by a psychologist, dropped dramatically, from eight per cent to 0.2 per cent.

The experiment did not suggest that girls or boys should be forced to do anything differently - in terms of dress or choice of play. Despite social media backlash, it was not making the children "gender neutral", it was just trying to treat them exactly the same. Yet just by simply removing regular references to their gender, they began to regard themselves as equals.

There is no reason why any of this has to be done by gender, in any school.

The separate entrances for boys and girls from Victorian days - the words still visible on many an historic school building in Edinburgh - are used no more.

Lessons should be learned from this experiment and replicated in primary schools across the country.

Boys and girls are not gender neutral, but they are gender equal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jane Bradley: Schools are following wrong gender agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Separate queues and coat pegs for boys and girls draws an unnecessary dividing line at an early age writes Jane Bradley When I was in the oldest class at primary school, my teacher, generally a very nice man, called all of us girls to stay behind one break time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Gender-neutral' simply means stereotype-free, and starting with clothes labels is a step in the right direction to expressing full humanity, academic potential and healthy relationships

Yes! Girls like dinosaurs too! John Lewis unisex babywear launched in January 2017.
Photo: John Lewis Artroom Babywear range

The John Lewis move to do away with labelling clothes 'for boys' and 'for girls' in their stores and the BBC2 programme, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender-Free? have brought the 'gender-neutral' conversation into the mainstream. 'Gender neutral' or 'gender-free' isn't about denying 'girlhood', 'boyhood' or any individual's identity, but about recognising the harm of gender stereotypes. The terms have been misunderstood through fear or unfamiliarity - parents and educators don't consciously limit their children. It doesn't mean denying gender, rather it rejects narrow stereotypes of the heavily gendered culture our children grow up in. Stereotypes that tell boys and girls what they should and should not be into. Let Clothes Be Clothes campaign is about allowing children to be free of limiting gender norms that starts with pink and blue, builds up to to passive and aggressive, and, consequently, does much more than stifling personal expression. Gender stereotypes feed into lower academic confidence and achievement and fuel unhealthy relationships. They create conditions for male sexual violence.

Tees for boys are frequently emblazoned with slogans such as Double Trouble and Little Monster - grooming them, along with other cultural messages about violent masculinity in video games, action hero movies and children's ads that focus on weaponry and aggressive play. Boys are largely targeted with Nerf guns and Boys' Lego sets, the majority of which, a study found, promote violence and conflict. All this channels them into the 'super-strong hero' or 'bad boy' stereotype that is eulogized at every turn in popular culture, ending somewhere around lad culture, action heroes who never emote and rap artists bigging up guns and pimping. Where can boys learn that being kind and caring is part of manhood? Where can you buy a tee that reads, 'Little acts of kindness', 'Get Creative', 'Boys can cry too y'know!"

Meanwhile girls' clothing is frequently tighter, smaller, decorative and therefore frequently more restrictive (so many girls' school shoes are useless on wet days) celebrating princess culture and being pretty, sexualising girls earlier and earlier, and sending the message to themselves, and to boys, that girls' value is on their looks and their interests lack aspiration. Pink Stinks campaign shows how pink and princess culture leads to early sexualisation - affecting physical and mental health and academic performance as an American Psychological Association report showed - with pink coloured grooming and domestic toys, falling short in spatial awareness and building play, being channelled towards girls.

In the BBC2 programme, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? presenter Dr Javid Abelmoneim tried to get parents to think more consciously about the slogans on their children's T-shirts by creating some of his own. He pulled out a genuine T-shirt 'for girls' with the words, 'Forever Beautiful'. Let's note here that during his classroom experiment, Dr Javid asked the girls to describe themselves and the words 'pretty' came up time and time again, with one girl describing herself as 'ugly'. Parents were then asked if they'd buy their daughters a T-shirt with the slogan 'Looks are Everything' - as the girls had shown they'd come to believe in class. Dr Javid then showed parents tees with the words 'Boys Are Better' and 'Made To Be Underpaid,' demonstrating that by feeding girls messages such as 'Forever Beautiful', they're telling their daughters that 'Looks are Everything', the girls have come to think that 'Boys Are Better' and the result is low confidence, underachievement and being 'underpaid'. For the boys, Dr Javid showed parents a genuine tee with the typical slogan, 'Here Comes Trouble.' He then pulled out three more: 'Boys Don't Cry', 'Tough Guys Don't Talk' and 'Bottled Up and Ready To Burst.' During episode one, we' saw how the boys were unable to express themselves and deal with feelings of failure, weakness and anger, yet by the end of the gender-stereotype smashing lessons, they displayed a significant increase in empathy and self-expression, with one boy explaining how he was able to talk instead of strop. The girls' confidence in their abilities increased significantly too, and they began to describe themselves as 'clever', 'unique' and 'happy.'

Stereotyped clothing spotted by parents sent to @letclothesbe

Boys and girls need all the help they can get to understand that nothing is off limits to them, there isn't 'boys stuff' or 'girls stuff' - there's just stuff. This is about more than allowing children the freedom to break free of limiting, stifling boxes that can impact their self-expression for life. This is more than nurturing mental wellbeing and academic potential. Gender stereotypes feed into unhealthy relationships too, denying girls and boys the enjoyment of equal, respectful friendships and personal and working relationships later on. What happens when you put a boy who has learnt to hide his feelings and act tough, who has learnt that he must be aggressive to win respect, who can only emote anger, who has learnt from the wallpaper of sexual objectification what women are for and what he is expected to get from them - what happens when he meets a girl who has internalised sexualisation to be an object for others and has not learnt to own her own voice? The result is an epidemic of teen relationship abuse where wholescale confusion around consent has replaced fun consenting sex. Healthy Relationships provider Tender tell us Young people aged 16-24 are at the greatest risk of experiencing domestic abuse. The result is schools where sexual violence in all its forms, starting with name- calling girls 'slags' is so routine it goes unnoticed. The 2016 MPs Inquiry into sexual violence in schools told us that nearly three-quarters of 16-18 year olds say they hear labels such as 'slag' and 'slut' directed at girls regularly and nearly a third of girls aged 16-18 have experienced unwanted sexual touching. Sex Ed providers report boys feel under pressure to be sexually active early on. Both girls and boys are under pressure. And it starts with pink and blue.
Results of challenging Gender Stereotypes on BBC2's No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender-Free?
A reminder of what was achieved in a matter of weeks:

* At the start there was an 8% difference in boys and girls self-esteem. At the end it was just 0.2%. (Girls said they could do anything now, one wanted to be an astronaut)
* Boys pro-social behaviour (kindness to others) went up 10% and their ability to identify emotions improved. (Girls said the boys were more caring.)
* Girls' self motivation increased by 12%
* Girls were 40% more accurate at predicting their test score before a test (increased self belief and mindset for learning and taking on challenges)
* After practising spatial awareness puzzles/ Tangram puzzles for two weeks - girls became equally adept as boys. (Girls toys typically lack building skills.)
* BIGGEST CHANGE Boys' bad behaviour went down 57%. (Boys learnt to express themselves, talk and not strop or get so angry.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender-Neutral Clothing Is The Start Of Better Sex Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Gender-neutral' simply means stereotype-free, and starting with clothes labels is a step in the right direction to expressing full humanity, academic potential and healthy relationships Yes! Girls like dinosaurs too! John Lewis unisex babywear launched in January 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gender divisions remain in the classroom with boys preferring maths and sciences and girls favouring arts and humanities, a survey shows.

Half of boys (49 per cent) aged 7 to 15 said that IT or computing was one of their favourite subjects at school, compared with 26 per cent of girls, the poll by analysts Mintel shows.

Some 47 per cent of boys said they liked PE and 41 per cent enjoyed maths, while 43 per cent of girls said that art was one of their favourite subjects, followed by English (32 per cent) and music (23 per cent).

Only 26 per cent of girls said IT was one of their top three favourite subjects, while less than a third (29 per cent) favoured maths and 30 per cent liked sport.

Just 19 per cent of boys said art was one of their favourite subjects, followed by English (16 per cent) and music (12 per cent).

Beyond the classroom, 44 per cent of children said that being a plumber, builder or electrician was "for boys", while just 5 per cent said this is was a job "for girls".

But being a doctor was equally likely to be associated with boys and girls.

Parents 'reinforce stereotypes'

Within the home, UK parents seem to be treating their boys and girls differently. In the survey, 65 per cent of parents with girls said they were confident in their daughter baking without any adult help or supervision - but this proportion dropped to just 46 per cent for those with boys.

Some 44 per cent of parents said they would be confident with their daughter's ability to cook a meal without supervision, falling to 37 per cent for those with sons. While 34 per cent said they would be confident in their daughter's ability to wash clothes, compared with 25 per cent of parents with boys.

Jack Duckett, senior consumer lifestyles analyst at Mintel, said: "While the UK has taken huge steps in terms of equality over the last 50 years, gender stereotypes remain apparent among today's children and teens, as shown by their continued belief that certain subjects and professions are more suited to one gender or the other.

Lightspeed surveyed 1,500 internet users aged 7 to 15 and 1,500 internet users aged over 16 who were parents of children aged 7 to 15 in March.
Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender stereotypes are alive and kicking in the classroom, poll shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender divisions remain in the classroom with boys preferring maths and sciences and girls favouring arts and humanities, a survey shows. Half of boys (49 per cent) aged 7 to 15 said that IT or computing was one of their favourite subjects at school, compared with 26 per cent of girls, the poll by analysts Mintel shows.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I don't often write about current events. After all, I'm an archaeologist by training and it's typically ancient history that makes me sit up and pay attention. But catching up on the recent two-part...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ReadingWise - Why the reading curriculum needs to change if we want to raise girls' aspirations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The documentary was eye-opening for me. It brought tears to my eyes a couple of times. But more than anything, my main reaction was anger. To see little girls tentatively suggesting that boys are cleverer, and should be in charge, and that girls are good at wearing dresses and lipstick, is heart-breaking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We may just have come to the end of the summer holidays but anyone watching BBC Two's fascinating class room experiment with 7 year-olds, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender-free?, should feel they've had a lesson they'll never forget.By challenging some of the silly stereotypes that children of this age have, sadly, already taken on board, the idea was to show all of them, whatever sex, that with regard to what they want to do in life, the sky's the limit. 'Everyone can choose to be anything they want,' cried one boy after discovering that, just as girls can become car mechanics and architects, so can boys go in for ballet and make-up artistry.Hurrah!

Good news though this is, I can't help asking - why is it news? How, in the name of our children's health, did we get to the point where 7 year-olds - interviewed before the experiment - have already decided that 'girls are good at being pretty' and 'boys are better at being in charge'?Nearly 100 years after women won the vote and with rafts of Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination legislation on the statute book, sexist stereotypes are aliver and weller than they have ever been.I'm so cross I don't even care that those aren't words.

Because while we can all be guilty of following - instead of questioning - traditional lines of thought, the real villains are those creating traditions that were never there before.Yup, the manufacturing companies. The people who tell us not just that boys wear blue and girls wear pink (yawn, yawn), but that boys' shoes are Leaders, tough enough to run around in, climb trees and yes, you've guessed it, be in charge, whereas girls must wear flimsy Dolly Babes (thank you, Clarks, who until now I held in high esteem).

The divide goes further: that great universal building toy, Lego (remember when it was just red and white bricks?) now comes in sets with names like 'Andrea's and Stephanie's Beach Holiday,' 'Emma's Ice Cream Van,' and 'Willy's Butte Speed Training.'

Even such a basic activity as colouring isn't immune, with The Amazing Boys' Colouring Book ('from wacky robots and machines to exciting space scenes, medieval knights, massive monsters, motor cars and much, much more') paired with The Gorgeous Girls' Colouring Book ( 'dolls' houses, flowers, cupcakes and quilts, exotic fruit, feathers and fairytale carriages).

When challenged, the standard response from toy/clothes/shoes/book/household goods manufacturers is that they're giving customers what they want - an outrageous claim, since the very creation of gender-based products removes all choice of buying universal ones. Sneaky, too, since the real reason is screamingly obvious: profit. Divide the market and you double it. Buy pink wellies for your daughter and your son will refuse to wear them, so you can't pass them on and will have to shell out for new blue/black/grey/spiderman/whatever ones for him.

Indeed, when it comes to merchandising, the manufacturers go further: Skye, the only female character from the popular series, Paw Patrol, is inexplicably absent from 'boys' wellies,

while with Peppa Pig, Peppa herself is reserved for 'girls' items and the poor lads have to make do with George.

As a children's writer, I find this very depressing. We are told all the time that girls will read stories about boys, while boys won't read ones about girls. From my talks to boys in all kinds of schools, I'm convinced this needn't be the case; but if the message feeding through from infancy is that adventure, excitement, climbing trees, fighting monsters, building space rockets and flying to the moon are for boys only, who can blame them for assuming that a book with girl characters won't have any of this kind of stuff?

Both hero and villain of my first book, Ante's Inferno, are girls, with a boy being the other main character. My next title, The Tragickall History of Henry Fowst, is peopled almost exclusively by boys; while the cast of my current wip, The Fall of a Sparrow, is nearly all girls. I don't do this deliberately, it just happens. In all of the books, much is demanded of the main characters: bravery, quick-thinking, endurance, survival, a willingness to risk injury - even death - in pursuit of their cause. I hope this is what will count when arranging school visits, not the sex of my characters; but I know from bestselling writer Robin Stevens' experience that I may have a fight on my hands.

The author of the brilliant detective series for children beginning with Murder Most Unladylike, in which 12 year-olds Daisy and Hazel solve crimes, has had to stipulate that while she will happily visit single-sex and mixed schools alike, she will not speak to an audience of only girls in a mixed sex school.

Of course boys and girls are different. But not as different, not so divided on strict gender lines as our commercially-based society is teaching them today. Baby boys used to wear dresses, for heaven's sake. In Elizabethan times, they wore dresses until the age of 7, when they were 'breached'. By offering our children from babyhood onward this riot of supposed choice, all we are doing is building shades of the prison house around both sexes.
Which is incredibly sad.

Find out more about Griselda Heppel here:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can our kids go gender-free? Yes, if we'd let them, reckons Griselda Heppel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We may just have come to the end of the summer holidays but anyone watching BBC Two's fascinating class room experiment with 7 year-olds, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender-free?, should feel they've had a lesson they'll never forget.By challenging some of the silly stereotypes that children of this age have, sadly, already taken on board, the idea was to show all of them, whatever sex, that with regard to what they want to do in life, the sky's the limit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BBC No more boys and girls
Having always been a staunch advocate of the nurture argument, especially with babies, when it comes to preferences for toys, activities and colours it was with more than just normal curiosity that I tuned into the BBC 2 programme ' No more boys and girls'. It didn't disappoint. The show considered 'nurture' in the classroom and in the home at the age of 7 years. Worryingly ideas of gender, including ability, expected behaviour and limitations, are set by the age of seven. We talk a lot about pink and blue but my worry has never been the colours themselves but the language around them - I wrote about this previously here so I won't labour that point again this time!

Up until puberty physiologically boys and girls are the same, same brain, same strength, same size (obviously sizes and strength vary depending on the build of a child). The programme challenged both boys and girls perceptions of themselves, their gender and of those around them. There were some typical observations - girls underestimated their ability, boys were more likely to be angry, girls were less likely to be good at tasks involving spatial awareness and boys expected girls to look after children when they got older. I often have the discussion with other parents (especially on mat leave) where they tell me that boys and girls are completely different - girls prefer dolls and kitchens, boys prefer cars and trains. I've never bought into this and as Chimamanda Adichie has so eloquently put '... take cooking for example ... I was going to say that maybe women are born with a cooking gene, until I remember that the majority of the famous cooks in the world, whom we give the fancy title of "chefs," are men.' I have always felt that in the younger years nurture plays such a huge part.

We only have to look around us - the toys, the clothes, the books, the cartoons - to think about the characters we expose our children to. We set their expectations of gender from such a young age. In fact we set their expectation from the moment they are born (or indeed before they are born if we know their gender when they are in the womb). Studies have shown that parents talk to baby girls using more emotional language than they do with boys, that they are more physical with baby boys, they look at a baby boy and use language of being 'big and strong' and look at a girl of the same weight and say they are 'so pretty and delicate'. This means that from the moment they open their eyes in their new world they are being led in one particular direction.

This is nothing new but it is often so subconscious that it affects everything we then do as proven by the experiment Dr Javid Abelmoneim conducted with a number of volunteers. They all thought they were liberal and open minded but immediately gave what they thought were girls the dolls and boys the cars etc. It's not rocket science to see that this is already shaping how children see themselves and the opportunities they then have as they get older. How do you know you are good at something if you didn't even get to try it?

One of the most interesting parts for me was that Professor Gina Rippon used brain scans to show that the brains of little boys and girls are anatomically the same. She also showed that the more you practised a certain skill the denser the corresponding part of the brain becomes. Sometimes old wives tales are such for a reason and 'practise makes perfect' is clearly right. So yes 7 year old boys are better at shape based puzzles and models. Why? Because they have been playing with these types of toys since they were babies. Why? Because they are 'boy' toys. Girls haven't necessarily had the opportunity so they aren't going to be the best - track this through life and you see why there are fewer female engineers. Guess what though? When the girls practised these same games a couple of times every week, they also became really good at them. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

The results were brilliant. After the 6 weeks, the girls were more confident and more accurately predicting their fantastic results and the boys were more emotionally stable generally being less angry and lashing out far less. Perhaps most importantly both genders now had the view that there aren't specific boy jobs and girl jobs. Boys and girls as equals. That can only be a good thing.

It's a challenge, but we can affect some of the world around us, our language, the toys and books we buy but what worries me is our unconscious bias with the reactions we have to the actions of our (and others) children.

We expect boys to climb higher, be tougher, be louder and when they do these things as babies, as toddlers, as children we smile, raise our eyebrows and say 'boys'. When girls do them we coax them down, stop them falling and tell them to be good, to keep quiet. We need to stop doing this, let all children climb higher (and yes sometimes they will fall), encourage a bit of toughness in everyone and tell all the children to be kind and mindful of others. I am hopeful that the generation we are raising now will be more aware and really can strive for what they want to do, not because they were limited by the world around them but because they were encouraged to try as many things as possible no matter what that activity or game is.
References: No more boys and girls, BBC2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2017/33/no-more-boys-and-girls
Our girls' confidence, our boys' mental health and ultimately our society depends on it.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3581587/mothers-emotion-words-girls-boys-surrey-studymothers-encourage-emotions-more-in-daughters-over-sons-study-says/%3fsource=dam
Gender and age differences in parent-child emotion talk, Anna Aznar & Harriet Tenembaum http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjdp.12069/abstract

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BBC No more boys and girls Having always been a staunch advocate of the nurture argument, especially with babies, when it comes to preferences for toys, activities and colours it was with more than just normal curiosity that I tuned into the BBC 2 programme 'No more boys and girls'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A first step in a revolution? | The Psychologist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The documentary makes a bit of an overgeneralisation by suggesting that these results, found in one primary school class on the Isle of Wight, may apply to children across the country. This remains to be seen, but what we do know is that these small, easy to implement changes began to undo the negative consequences of deeply rooted gender stereotypes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In my last post I wrote about the recent BBC programme on gender in education ( see here) and the impact that unconscious bias (also known as the problem you have that you don't know you have,) has in our education system. I wrote about the 'lovely teacher' but I didn't name him. Well, he is Graham Andre and despite being caught up in a flurry of TV and radio appearances following the huge public interest in the show, he has made time to share his thoughts with us on Changing People. (I told you he was lovely!) He is also the very first man I have interviewed for the blog.

Graham, you were very brave to agree to appear on the BBC programme on gender. How did it come about?
Well Jane, we were sent an email by the producers 'Outline Productions' late last year with their idea for a project based on the good gender neutral work that has happened in Sweden. They wondered if they could reproduce something similar in the UK and would we be interested? Our head, Caroline Sice, is pretty forward thinking and emailed it to me. I didn't at the time have much of an idea about the work in Sweden but thought if it helps the children in any way, why not! After several weeks of interviews and filming we were lucky enough to be selected.

How long have you been teaching at the school? What first attracted you to teaching as a career?
I have been teaching for five years so this is my sixth, I was a teaching assistant before that and I was working in another school when my current head suggested I do a part time degree and become a teacher. I honestly did not ever think I would become a teacher as I didn't think I was ready to mould the future of so many children, but I am so glad I did it.

When you trained, was any attention given to the differences, or otherwise, of boys and girls? Have you had any subsequent training on the idea of unconscious bias?
Do you know I don't think it was Jane, we were taught a little about the hidden curriculum and promoting citizenship and manners etc. but never about how the language you use and the way you treat children can be so powerful. Maybe something for the future?

How did you feel when the presenter highlighted your 'sexist' (sorry!) naming of the boys and girls? What was it, 'Love' or 'Sweetie' for the girls and 'Mate' and 'Buddy' for the boys? Had anyone, including the children ever commented on it before? (For the record, I thought you dealt with it really well. I call everybody darling, regardless of gender... which isn't really PC either....)
Thank you, I was aware of my use of terms of endearment and my head during observations had pointed this out to me. What I didn't realise was how often I used them and that they were re-enforcing gender stereotypes. Now watching old recorded lessons makes me cringe with the use of endearments!

The programme necessarily edits and shortens a lot. When did you first start to see a change in the children's behaviour following the more gender neutral style you were introducing?
It was a gradual process, I didn't see changes overnight but by about week four, references by the children themselves to gender neutrality, fairness and being able to achieve was pretty embedded. The challenge is to keep those views and behaviours going.

I am not sure when the programme was recorded or how much time you have had to put the learning into action. I know you have continued the ideas of gender neutral teaching and shared it within the school. What further changes has this had?
The filming finished around Easter so I have had a term of promoting gender neutrality in my class without the cameras there. We do a weekly 'Question Time' debate where I put a statement on the whiteboard such as 'Men are better at looking after babies than women' and the children debate whether they agree or disagree. I have some lovely video of one debate where DNA is brought into the argument!

We also now have 'Gender Neutral' as part of our curriculum, so not only do we plan for Literacy, Numeracy etc. but being gender neutral, so our next topic is Harry Potter and we will look at the roles of men and women within the story and study the great work done by Emma Watson and JK Rowling.

Can you name one thing you did that had the biggest impact? And one thing that surprised you the most?
I don't think there was one thing that had an impact I think it was the sum of the parts, I think all of the interventions needed to be put in place for it to work. The one thing that surprised me was that although I thought I knew my children really well, I didn't know that girls felt so low in their own confidence and to quite such an extent boys struggle to talk about their emotions.

The parents shown in the film were presumably self selecting and therefore largely supportive, despite being 'gently 'outed 'for their choice of toys, etc. Have you had any resistance from influences outside of the children's school life? Did the parents keep up with the changes?
The parents have been super, in fact they regularly send me pictures of their children doing things that break gender stereotypes. They are also brilliant at finding things in the media or in shops that are gender specific.

I know from our conversations that you are committed to seeing a more gender neutral way of educating boys and girls being rolled out across the board. How are you doing this?
I have spoken to the teachers and teaching assistants in school about the work done during the documentary and the impact it has had. We have a shared drive in which I have saved lots of resources that I have created during and after the documentary. We really want a gender neutral school, including posters with 'Girls can do maths', 'Boys can Dance' messages etc.

As for making other schools gender neutral, I am more than happy to talk to schools about my experience and help in any way that I can. I also think Javid Abdelmoneim is passionate about the project and would like to start a campaign to make 'gender neutral' schooling part of our curriculum

I'm going to make you Minister of Education for a day. If you could make just one change mandatory within education to further equality between the genders, what would it be?
To make sure that teachers are aware that their words and actions have enormous power on restricting what girls and boys think they can be and achieve. We need gender neutral teaching to become part of teacher training and for all current teachers to watch the documentary and make changes to their own practice.

And finally, as parents, aunts, uncles, friends, concerned adults, what can we do to help spread the word?
Please watch the documentary, look at the results and badger your local school, MP's anyone to make a change. (And share the video below!)
Graham, thank you so much and lang may yer lum reek! I hope the programme continues to have such a positive impact and we see a real change in the not too distant future.
As most of you know, I am passionate about women being treated equally in all areas of life. It's not about trashing the men; we know that men benefit too, when women are given an equal footing. It is hard to undo years of conditioning, subtle and not so subtle. Our first step is in recognising that we women have been led towards giving the glass ceiling a good old polish rather than smashing through it! But the times they are a'changing and not a moment too soon. I am personally running two courses this Autumn, both with the aim of boosting your confidence, giving you time and space to reflect on what you want, and maybe to challenge some of those ingrained assumptions. I can honestly tell you that every single comment I have received about the courses has been overwhelmingly positive. This month alone I have been contacted by three separate women who did my courses several years ago, saying that they are still reaping the benefits. I am so pleased and not a little humbled. We can make a positive change!

RenewYou , one day course suitable for any woman at any stage.

Speak Up, a one day course for women who want to progress their careers in a world designed large to suit men.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls - in conversation with Graham Andre | Changing People Blog Changing People Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In my last post I wrote about the recent BBC programme on gender in education ( see here) and the impact that unconscious bias (also known as the problem you have that you don't know you have,) has in our education system. I wrote about the 'lovely teacher' but I didn't name him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender in the classroom #nomoreboysandgirls (with images, tweets) · LetToysBeToys

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We would have preferred a different title (more below) but it was great to see BBC2's documentary showing how taking the emphasis off gender in the classroom can deliver real educational and social benefits for both boys and girls. We've collected some of the responses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Separate queues and coat pegs for boys and girls draws an unnecessary dividing line at an early age writes Jane Bradley

When I was in the oldest class at primary school, my teacher, generally a very nice man, called all of us girls to stay behind one break time.

He'd noticed that we had been playing football in the school yard, he said - and it worried him.

We weren't strong enough to play football with the boys, he told us. Then, blushing, he warned us that if we were injured playing football, it might prevent us from having children later in life.

Of course, looking back, it was absolutely ludicrous - though I have no doubt he was doing it with the kindest of motives, if the most insanely misguided medical knowledge. I have no idea why we didn't all run home immediately and tell our parents - and why they didn't kick up the most almighty of rucuses at school. If it happened today, there would be an outcry.

But it was the 80s, we were ten years old and we just listened sagely to what he said and stopped joining in the dangerous sporting activity, returning to our sensible, girlish games of skipping and tig while the boys ran around the football field.

Sexism has come a long way in 30 years. Everyone is very much more aware that it is not acceptable for girls to be banned from a playground football game.

Yet, it still goes on, in the most subtle and unconscious of ways. In adult life, there is still a gender pay gap, while women occupy less than a quarter of UK board positions. Although we might think we have gone a long way towards stamping out sexism, there is still a long way to go.

In my daughter's class at school, the children are already very consciously - on the part of the pupils, but probably quite unconsciously by the teaching staff - divided into boys and girls. The girls hang their coats on one type of coloured peg, the boys on another. When they leave at the end of the day to be delivered to waiting parents, there are two lines - one of girls and one of boys. The reason, the staff have explained to the children, is so it is easier to see who has left and who hasn't, so they split them into two, sending the lines out one at a time.

My friend's son's school does the same when the children are sent into the dining hall for lunch - a boys's line and a girls's line, while the separate peg or cupboard for bags and coats seems endemic throughout the primary school system.

It may all seem harmless and of course one group is not told they are any better than the other, but it draws a dividing line between the genders at an age when it has been proven that can have a damaging effect.

A fascinating documentary series which began on BBC Two last week looked at how seven year old boys and girls view themselves and each other.

In the programme,'No More Boys And Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?' a class of children living on the Isle of Wight were interviewed about their opinions on who was stronger, cleverer, better at games.

The boys constantly had a high opinion of their abilities - yet both sexes regarded the girls as weaker in every respect.

An experiment involving a fairground "strong man" game - where the children had to hit a target with a mallet as hard as possible, proved particularly interesting. The boys were all convinced that they would score 10. Most of the girls, however, were far more conservative, their estimates ranging mainly between two and five.

The presenter explained that at the age of seven, indeed until youngsters reach puberty, there is no physical difference in strength between male and female children. Meanwhile, a brain scan experiment showed that there no such thing as a female or male brain.

Yet the children in the class were all convinced that a discrepency existed - until they played the game and their equal strength became evident. The over-confident boys were distraught, the self-deprecating girls delighted.

When the presenter, Dr Javid Abdelmoneim, investigated how the youngsters were treated, the children were split by gender on a daily basis.

Interestingly, the class's teacher, again a nice man, not unlike my well-meaning teacher of the 80s, constantly drew attention to the difference between girls and boys.

He called the girls "love" and the boys "mate", multiple times a day. They, like children in my own daughter's class, had to hang their coats in separate spaces, splitting them into gender groups from the minute they walked into the classroom.

For six weeks, they were treated the same - playing the same sports, reading the same books and putting their coats in the same cupboard, which was repainted a gender neutral orange.

Interestingly, after the experiment, the difference between the children's self esteem, when scored by a psychologist, dropped dramatically, from eight per cent to 0.2 per cent.

The experiment did not suggest that girls or boys should be forced to do anything differently - in terms of dress or choice of play. Despite social media backlash, it was not making the children "gender neutral", it was just trying to treat them exactly the same. Yet just by simply removing regular references to their gender, they began to regard themselves as equals.

There is no reason why any of this has to be done by gender, in any school.

The separate entrances for boys and girls from Victorian days - the words still visible on many an historic school building in Edinburgh - are used no more.

Lessons should be learned from this experiment and replicated in primary schools across the country.

Boys and girls are not gender neutral, but they are gender equal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jane Bradley: Schools are following wrong gender agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Separate queues and coat pegs for boys and girls draws an unnecessary dividing line at an early age writes Jane Bradley When I was in the oldest class at primary school, my teacher, generally a very nice man, called all of us girls to stay behind one break time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're in the UK you may have heard the buzz around a BBC two programme looking at how girls and boys are treated differently. It's called No More Boys and Girls, a deliberately provocative title. The premise is that boys and girls are not substantially different in abilities or behaviour but the way we treat them makes them so. There is a neurologist on the programme who begins by telling the presenter that there is no discernible difference in the brains of boys or girls, or in strength. A big girl will be stronger than a small boy and vice versa, at least until puberty. Even I had brought into the myth that boys were physically stronger! (Hangs head in shame).

In the programme, a primary class on the Isle of Wight is subject to an experiment to see how much conditioning and stereotyping plays a part in how both perceive themselves. Both genders are asked a series of questions. The answers to these questions mirror the answers, or survey results, of adults. For example, in the programme it clearly showed that generally girls undersell their abilities, boys oversell. Girls actually do better than they thought when tested, and everyone is amazed. Women undersell themselves at job interview, men oversell their abilities. The teacher, a lovely chap, brilliantly illustrates unconscious bias by how he treats and addresses the boys and girls differently. He is shocked to learn he asks more questions of the boys than the girls, for example. All credit to him of being so open, honest, and deciding to change.

Predictably, the programme's premise has received a lot of flak on social media from people who say it is nonsense and boys should be boys and girls should be girls. They miss the point; we have determined what a boy should be and what a girl should be, and we're doing neither any favours. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. Both are missing out on opportunities in life.

Speak Up

My particular interest is in what happens to women who have been socialised in this way when they grow up. There are a plethora of studies that show this early conditioning stays with them, which, if not directly responsible for inequality, has a large part to play. It's hard to shake off notions ingrained in childhood that boys are cleverer, stronger, etc. This was brought home to me most graphically when I was working in the Probation Service with groups of disadvantaged young women. Almost all were in thrall to a man who held sway over them, a fact they didn't question, even when violence against them was involved. Equally, I worked with lots of young male offenders, in fact I was the lead officer for under 21 year olds males, I was kept very busy! Their inability to deal with their anger had led many of them into direct conflict with the law. Interestingly, on the BBC programme, the boys lacked a sufficient vocabulary to express their emotions except when it came to anger. There is a direct causal link, I am in no doubt, having run anger management groups for young men.

So what do you do? Well, as with the lovely teacher in the show, once you become aware of it, you can change how you think and behave. All is not lost. It's why I wrote Speak Up. I looked at all the (pukka) research on gender differences and how women at work are treated and brought it into one place. (It's not a fact heavy course though.) The very same issues that crop up for seven year olds re-occur in 27, 37 and 47 year olds. Helping them become aware of it helps them make changes, actual and psychological, that remove these barriers. For example, it is generally held that women talk more than men at work. Men think this, women think this. Actual observation of meetings shows this not to be true. Men talk the most, a surprise to both genders. But if you think you talk a lot, maybe you will find it harder to Speak Up?

I am running a Speak Up in Bristol in November at a very special one off price. Please check it out and come along. I'd love to see you! We might not be able to change the world but we can change our little bit of it.

I hope you can see the trailer below. If not, try clicking this link.

Last week I got accused of using a 'pretty woman' to promote my post in a sexist way. The post was about sexism and the picture? Well, judge for yourself. The subject of the photo was very amused.

'I don't know of one female journalist who hasn't been discriminated against at work'. Catherine Mayer certainly has and is doing something about it by suing her former employer. More power to her. We have to call out sexism when we can.

Women, you are much more powerful than you realise. Small steps can lead to big changes. You can make a difference. Recognise your power. Woman Up!

If I am forced to sum up what I do in three words I will say 'boost women's confidence'. I hate saying it really because I hate to perpetuate the idea that women aren't confident. Yet my recent post on Imposter Syndrome provoked so many responses that I have to acknowledge it's alive and well. Surely after survey still tells us that women lack confidence. Really?

Is there a gender pay gap? Oh yes. The BBC makes the news over unequal pay. 'It's the market". Really? That market run by men, perchance?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're in the UK you may have heard the buzz around a BBC two programme looking at how girls and boys are treated differently. It's called No More Boys and Girls, a deliberately provocative title. The premise is that boys and girls are not substantially different in abilities or behaviour but the way we treat them makes them so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Absolutely. At least according to a compelling new BBC documentary. I can only hope that other schools - including my daughters - watch and learn, says Rebecca Schiller

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On the fantastic BBC2 show, Dr Javid Abdelmoneim conducts a social experiment with primary school children to see what impact going "Gender Neutral" will have. As part of this, the school class removed all gendered books from their classroom.
Teacher Mr Andre was shocked by the number of books that had to be removed. "I just wonder, up and down the country, how many class bookshelves are just like this? What do we replace these books with?" As a study by the Florida State University in 2011 showed, in 6,000 books published in the US, only 31% featured central female characters.

One of the titles brought in by Dr Javid to replace the classroom books was the brilliant The Princess in Black, which challenges gender assumptions with a princess who leads a secret life as a superhero. A funny and action-packed series, it's perfect for readers who like their princesses with more action than glitter and tiaras!

What better review than from Bella, the pupil featured in the BBC2 show:
"I do not like reading," says Bella "but I like reading that book."
After featuring on the programme, the book sales increased 12,987% overnight on Amazon - showing the enormous demand from parents for books that challenge gender assumptions.

Over 400k copies of the books have sold in the US, by Shannon and Dean Hale who are an award-winning and bestselling wife and husband writing duo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The Princess in Black' Featured on BBC2's No More Boys and Girls: Can our Kids Go Gender Free - Family Go Live

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the fantastic BBC2 show, Dr Javid Abdelmoneim conducts a social experiment with primary school children to see what impact going "Gender Neutral" will have. As part of this, the school class removed all gendered books from their classroom. Teacher Mr Andre was shocked by the number of books that had to be removed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So I'm watching No More Boys And Girls on the BBC, a heartwarming story about how a teacher and a doctor help children to develop beyond the gender stereotypes that our culture tries to limit them to.

And I can't understand why someone would disagree with this.

Maybe it's the title, chosen to attract attention. Or maybe it's because anything to do with gender always brings out the trolls. Or maybe it's because some people prefer girls to play with dolls because having kids is a higher calling than having a career.

Someone says to me: "there is a difference between gender equal and gender neutral" and I'm not sure what the answer is so I don't say anything. It is a (male) teacher.

Afterwards I think about it and I think this: if you create a gender neutral environment then you are creating the conditions in which you can get gender equality. Also, it's easy to say you believe in gender equality but we still don't actually have it.

There are lots of commentators talking about "social engineering". So why is it social engineering when educationalists try to help children reach their potential, and not social engineering when retailers try to put children into boxes?

There is nothing sinister about helping boys to express their emotions (and become better behaved), helping girls to be more ambitious (and better at football), helping all kids to become more rounded, kinder, more ambitious people. I can't see how that is controversial.

It did upset a lot of viewers when the TV presenter made the parents chuck out all the "girly" clothes - including a whole wardrobe of "princess" dresses. I did think that was going too far: the problem isn't with girls wanting to be "girly", it's with girls wanting ONLY to be girly. There's nothing wrong with enjoying glamour and romance as long as that doesn't circumscribe your life. Which was a point I tried to make but it was too subtle a distinction for some people.

I don't have kids, and I'm still waiting for my nieces and nephews to have babies, so I don't know much about children's lives these days. And I was shocked to find out that the gender differences being imposed on kids are actually much worse than when I was growing up in the 60s.

I knew about the campaign to stop categorising toys by gender, but I didn't know about the slogan T-shirts. Starting the brainwashing early: girls' T-shirts saying "Forever beautiful" (translated helpfully by the presenter as "Looks are everything"); boys' T-shirts saying "Here comes trouble" (like that's a good thing). "Feminism in reverse" says one parent campaigner, in a well argued blog post.

Nobody tried to impose those messages on me as a kid. Maybe it's because I didn't have brothers (so my dad had to live out his university ambitions through us girls), maybe it's because my parents were teachers (so valued education and intelligence) or maybe it's because we didn't live in an era of rampant consumerism where retailers and marketers decided what we think (and what we think we want). And slogan T-shirts weren't invented.

I never played much with dolls: my favourite Christmas presents ever (apart from book tokens) were a typewriter and a cowboy outfit. No-one seemed to mind. Outside school, I wore shorts and trousers. I went through a phase of wanting to be a boy (I blame Enid Blyton). No-one minded. And nobody tried to instil an aspiration to be a "princess".

It's true that I was never encouraged to think seriously about careers, which still makes me cross, but there was never pressure to be "girly". I never have been, and I'm still not.

Sadly, I don't think I was typical. Some years ago, when I was having a quarter-life crisis, I went on a women's self-development course. We were asked to pick three words to describe ourselves. I picked: intelligent, caring, confused. Every woman in that room picked "caring": defining themselves in relation to other people, not in terms of their own potential. I was the only one to choose "intelligent". And they were all intelligent women.

That's why it makes me sad to see little girls now using words like "pretty, lipstick, dresses, love hearts" when asked to describe girls. And if they end up using words "unique" and "happy" instead, how can that be bad?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sugar and spice and all things nice... thoughts on No More Boys and Girls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So I'm watching No More Boys And Girls on the BBC, a heartwarming story about how a teacher and a doctor help children to develop beyond the gender stereotypes that our culture tries to limit them to. And I can't understand why someone would disagree with this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No More Boys and Girls: Can our kids go gender free? BBC2, 9pm

No More Boys and Girls is an experiment in whether children can be raised equal, without gender stereotyping. Held at Lanesend Primary in the Isle of Wight as Dr Javid Abdelmoneim's fascinating gender experiment came to a suitably heart-warming end in the final show of BBC2's two-parter. New tests showed that after a term spent trying to erase gender barriers the boys were more in touch with their feelings and the girls had grown in self-belief. There was a lovely assembly in which the children explained what they'd learnt and some great moments, most notably when the previously resistant Riley admitted how much he'd enjoyed sewing his glove puppet toy. "I've completely changed my opinion now because now I know that boys and girls can do anything they want," announced Louis at the programme's end. You really can't say fairer that that.
Read more about No More Boys and Girls: A timely BBC show makes a strong argument that inequality at work begins in childhood. Watch No More Boys and Girls on iPlayer: bbc.co.uk/iplayer/no-more-boys-and-girls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls: Can our kids go gender free? review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No More Boys and Girls is an experiment in whether children can be raised equal, without gender stereotyping. Held at Lanesend Primary in the Isle of Wight as Dr Javid Abdelmoneim's fascinating gender experiment came to a suitably heart-warming end in the final show of BBC2's two-parter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abdelmoneim is a natural communicator in front of the camera and with the children, who were the real stars - and not just in their gender-neutral poem performed at the end-of-term assembly. The boy with the biggest story arc was Riley, who learnt "it's better to talk than strop". At the football on the beach, where he was first to propose mixed teams, he wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the words, "We Are the Future". It would be lovely to hope that first-person plural as gender-inclusive.

It was repetitive at times, to ensure the messages got home. But No More Boys and Girls should be compulsory viewing in schools up and down the land. It would also be a great boon to the equality revolution if the bottom could be persuaded to fall out of the market for pink. "I know I can be anything I want to be," said the previously shy Maisie, whose princess-themed fashions and accessories were bagged up and confiscated. In someone older that would sound like an empty bromide. In one so young it had the gleam of conviction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? should be compulsory viewing in schools - review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abdelmoneim is a natural communicator in front of the camera and with the children, who were the real stars - and not just in their gender-neutral poem performed at the end-of-term assembly. The boy with the biggest story arc was Riley, who learnt "it's better to talk than strop".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Life is too short to stuff a mushroom". Four decades on, the author Shirley Conran's maxim for working women still holds true. She wasn't talking only about time management, or indeed cooking, but about the hidden cost of living up to other people's expectations.

If you're madly busy, stop thinking you have to spend hours in the kitchen every day; just getting dinner on the table will do. Time is finite. Hours spent trying and failing to match some ridiculous feminine ideal just means less of it for something else.

It's advice that never dates, which is why the mild backlash triggered by the writer Zadie Smith at the Edinburgh international book festival this week is in some ways surprising. Worried by the amount of time her daughter spends looking in the mirror, Smith said, she had told the girl never to spend more than 15 minutes putting on makeup because "your brother is not going to be wasting time doing this".

To be clear, Smith wasn't banning makeup, or saying any woman who has ever resorted to mascara is an empty-headed fool. Her regime is arguably far less strict than that of the former newspaper editor Eve Pollard, who according to her daughter Claudia Winkleman wouldn't let her teenage children have mirrors because she wanted to teach them that appearance matters a lot less than being able to "read books, be funny, be clever, be chatty".

All Smith was doing was pointing out that time is finite. Sure, slap some makeup on to make yourself feel confident in the morning. But life's too short to spend an hour every day trying to contour (a Kardashian-inspired process of trompe l'oeil, using dark and light shades of makeup to create the illusion of a resculpted face).

Regardless of what they think of her methods, many mothers of daughters will share Smith's unease about the time spent staring either into the mirror or into the virtual reflection of their smartphones. The issue isn't vanity but the crippling anxiety induced in girls, and increasingly boys too, when fragile adolescent self-esteem hangs on the number of likes a selfie gets. Smith's daughter is only seven, which means all this is presumably theoretical right now, but she is wise to start the conversation early.

The children of No More Boys and Girls, BBC2's provocative documentary about a class of primary school children encouraged to challenge gender norms, were only seven too, but they had some alarmingly fixed ideas about what being a girl means: lipstick, dresses, being pretty. Heartbreakingly, one little girl described herself as "ugly", a word that had the children's parents wincing when shown the results.

It's primetime telly, not real life, so of course the answers presented were simplistic and the neuroscience at best basic. At one point presenter Javid Abdelmoneim emptied a child's bedroom of all stereotypically "girly" toys, as part of an experiment encouraging the girls to work with construction toys and develop their spatial awareness, while the boys were encouraged into more nurturing play. Poor Maisie, contemplating binbags full of princess dresses and Barbie dolls dumped on the landing, was understandably wobbly-lipped.

But her deprivation was only temporary and the gist of the programme hard to deny: not that there are no differences between the sexes, but that artificially narrow ideas of what boys and girls can do are ridiculously constricting and unhelpful to both sexes. As the experiment wore on, the girls' confidence and academic expectations increased, while bad behaviour among boys - who had been encouraged to express and manage their emotions - declined.

Girls should feel free to play with robots and Lego if they want, just as boys should have the chance to play with craft kits and teddies - and anyone who thinks this goes against the grain of nature doesn't know nearly enough seven-year-old boys.

Yes, they'll turn absolutely anything into a gun, given half a chance (one friend relented when hers started chewing their breakfast toast into revolver shapes). But sleepovers when my son was that age would invariably involve a houseful of testosterone-fuelled little boys brandishing weaponry - until bedtime, when out would come piles of threadbare cuddly gonks, without which none of them could sleep. Little boys like guns and teddies, and shouldn't have to feel ashamed of either. But the same is true of little girls too.

The point is to add options to children's lives, not subtract them

Last week, the newly elected Tory MP Paul Masterton posted a snapshot of his three-year-old daughter's first day at nursery. He was promptly criticised by an SNP councillor for letting the girl wear a pink coat while her baby brother's T-shirt had trucks on it. How very dare he enforce gender stereotypes?

Yet according to her father, while Daisy Masterton does indeed like pink and Disney princesses, she also likes playing with cars, and Thomas the Tank Engine. The two are not mutually exclusive. "Girls can like glitter and cars; boys can like dolls and can like dinosaurs," said the MP for East Renfrewshire, who admits this isn't the issue he expected to be dealing with in his first few months in parliament.

But he's right. Challenging gender stereotypes doesn't have to involve running screaming from anything traditionally associated with one's gender. Ban dolls, pink or glitter, and you just feed a desire for forbidden fruit.

The point is to add options to children's lives, not subtract them. Kids encouraged to play with anything from chemistry sets to feather boas stand a better chance of being able to identify their passions for themselves - to grow into adults who understand that the sky will not fall in if they express emotion, or that liking shoes isn't incompatible with a career in engineering. As Harriet Harman said at the height of the hysteria over Labour's pink election battlebus, having a bright fuchsia iPad cover didn't somehow drain her of feminism at a stroke. All that matters is achieving a balance, both in children's lives and sometimes in the lives of over-anxious parents.

It's no more healthy for teenage girls to spend hours obsessing over their faces than it is for boys to spend hours hunched over a console playing shoot-'em-up games, and in both cases parents need to intervene and make their children think about what else is being squeezed out of their lives. But 15 minutes a day of experimenting with eyeshadow, or getting a Nerf gun for Christmas, isn't going to ruin anyone's life chances.

And if adults are still groping through this minefield in some confusion, I wonder if kids aren't quietly making rather less heavy weather of it. Charged with dishing out the temporary stick-on tattoos at a children's disco recently, I noticed how strictly the kids seemed to distinguish between "girl" ones (hearts, flowers, princesses) and "boy" ones (superheroes, skull and crossbones). Jumble the stickers up, and they would still search diligently for the "appropriate" ones. But then the most alpha boy of the lot demanded a Snow White tattoo on his forehead, and suddenly, all the boys were clamouring for them.

They knew princesses were girly, and they knew they weren't. And that's precisely what made it an appealing game: they were confident enough to play around for a laugh with concepts that still make their parents anxious. Given half a chance, I suspect the kids will work it out. It's the rest of us who need to grow up.

* Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't worry about girls' or boys' stuff. The children will figure it out | Gaby Hinsliff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Life is too short to stuff a mushroom". Four decades on, the author Shirley Conran's maxim for working women still holds true. She wasn't talking only about time management, or indeed cooking, but about the hidden cost of living up to other people's expectations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All that a new BBC documentary had to do to demonstrate our entrenched resistance towards gender equality, it turns out, was to exist in the first place.

In No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? (BBC Two, Wed, 9pm). a primary school class of seven-year-olds on the Isle of Wight agreed to go "gender neutral" for six weeks - intermingling blue and pink camps, asking its teacher to refrain from calling girl students "love" and boy students "mate", ensuring that students were randomly selected to answer questions or perform tasks, and bringing in evidence of equality to expand their horizons.

As word emerged about Dr Javid Abdelmoneim's rather innocent social experiment, sensitively handled and buoyantly presented, the online backlash before broadcast was immediate and revealing: A disgrace! Ridiculous! Attention-seeking!

This is hardly surprising. From feminism to bathroom laws, nothing enflames a reactionary quite as much as questioning The Way Things Have Always Been. After all, boys will be boys . . .

Abdelmoneim's contention was hardly radical: from as early as seven, with little inherent neurological differences, children's understanding of gender and their own potential within it becomes a list of received, restrictive ideas - with consequences for adult society. So, boys are strong, unemotional, higher status and better paid. ("They get into president easily, don't they?" muses one kid, which seems depressingly hard to contradict.) Girls, as a corollary, are pretty and princesses and tra-la-la-la-la!

This leads to some tragic inculcation: girls display significantly less confidence in themselves, underestimating their capacities, while boys vastly overestimate their own. If you want to understand why gender balance is so unequal in the boardroom, take a look at the kindergarten.

Dismantling this culture is a chore, but not impossible. An embarrassed teacher recognises his loaded terms of endearment (long after the kids do) and tries to curb them. A female electrician and a male ballet dancer are among adult visitors who suggest the kids can dream bigger and wider. And when one timid girl, who has long underestimated herself, bursts into "happy tears" upon hammering the bell on a fairground strength test, viewers of any gender will consider it okay to cry too.

A second instalment next week will follow the experiment into family homes, but the documentary has already intimated that the gender norms of the culture at large are harder to defuse. You have to start somewhere, though, and why shouldn't that be among the most plastic minds in society?

"I do not like reading," says one young girl, "but I like reading that book." She is speaking of a new addition to their library, The Princess in Black, whose character sees more to life than limiting expectations. In a child named Bella it may have found its ideal reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happens when you remove gender from the classroom?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All that a new BBC documentary had to do to demonstrate our entrenched resistance towards gender equality, it turns out, was to exist in the first place. In No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? (BBC Two, Wed, 9pm).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Revelatory BBC documentary No More Boys and Girls shows how our micro-behaviours toward children perpetuate an unequal society.

In case you missed it, last week, BBC broadcast the first steps on a journey to a gender-neutral culture for a selected group of seven-year-old kids in Lanesend Primary School on the Isle of Wight.

Each of the children featured in No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? was born when the UK began enforcing the 2010 Equality Act, a landmark piece of legislation bringing together more than 116 others under a single Act enshrining equality for all in society. Part and parcel of that act is legislating against gender discrimination, meaning these kids have grown up in a society made equal to them regardless of their gender - on paper, at least.

The reality, however, is that policy alone cannot shift attitudes or change a culture that has been cultivated over generations. These changes do not come swiftly, and the liminal phases between are tedious, frustrating and filled with the hard work of railing against the norm.

When discussing the show at the weekend, one friend remarked how her mother had reluctantly given up work when she became pregnant only because she felt obliged to by her community. This was a few years after the marriage bar preventing women in Ireland from continuing a career after wedlock was dismantled, but the prevailing attitude at home was that women - most certainly mothers - belonged there.

Ireland, like so many other countries the world over, offers equal opportunities to all genders by law, but that is evidently not followed through in practice. We consistently see fewer women in leadership roles (be that business, academia or politics), the gender pay gap persists, and the pipeline problems for women in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM, the lauded secure career path of the future) have been well documented across this website for years.

'We let our girls down from day one. We can't pretend there is a level playing field for them entering STEM professions after denying them the developmental resources for these areas in infancy'

Dr Javid Abdelmoneim, the presenter of No More Boys and Girls, has a theory as to why - with all the acts and bills and laws and policies and initiatives - gender inequality persists in society. Despite there being no fundamental difference between boys and girls up to the onset of puberty, we treat them differently from infancy.

Take, for example, the prevailing attitude that boys and men outperform girls when it comes to spatial relations. For too long, this has been accepted as a fundamental difference in the sexes, and it has trickled into related areas: men are better at maths, men are better at engineering, men are better at physics, men are better at coding.

We know this can't be true. There's nothing that biologically inhibits women from exhibiting capability in all these fields. But still, the idea persists. Why?

A particularly revealing moment in No More Boys and Girls saw babies dressed in 'gender-swapped' outfits and left in the care of adults unaware of the change. Unprompted, these adults were more gentle with the babies in feminine clothing, and steered them toward soft, cuddly toys, which, while cute, offered little for the baby's mental development. The babies in 'boy clothes', however, were handled more, plopped into toy cars, and directed towards blocks and shapes to play with.

These kids reach age seven and, chances are, the boys have had more opportunity to engage the part of the brain linked with spatial reasoning more often than the girls, perpetuating the myth of inherent difference between the two when really, it has been engineered that way from their early development.

The sobering thought here is that we let our girls down from day one. We can't pretend there is a level playing field for them entering STEM professions after denying them the developmental resources for these areas in infancy.

'The limited binary view of gender we dictate to children is incompatible with the world we have come to know and accept'

Those who railed against the feminisation of Lego and the development of a range specifically tailored to a limited idea of girlhood placed blame at the feet of a corporate monster imposing this idea on children. Lego - a world-leading toymaker now for more than 70 years - will undoubtedly have based this decision on commercial rationale. If the adults with the wallets and the purchasing power insist on buying 'girl toys' only for girls, then Lego will, as a commercial entity, follow the money and pander to them.

The fact is that toys, clothes, colours, emotions, professions and more are not either male or female. Moreover, the limited binary view of gender we dictate to children is incompatible with the world we have come to know and accept.

We must also be mindful of the demonisation of the feminine. There's nothing wrong with liking pastel colours, flowers and glitter. Yet, sometimes, those who want better for girls push this through a rejection of the pink, the sparkly, the cute. While it was good that the kids in Abdelmoneim's experiment got to meet people in professions that flipped their gender expectations, a more powerful statement could have been made if the male make-up artist showcased his skills at traditional make-up instead of focusing on the 'boy-friendly' stage make-up aspect of his work. In showing boys that this career is cool because you can make people look bruised and beaten, we continue to tread the well-worn path that boys can only like violent things and truly 'girly' pursuits are frivolous. (I am hoping there's more to the clip from this week's episode that showed Abdelmoneim speaking of a wardrobe full of princess dresses - "This all has to go.")

Unfortunately, while it will take effort for us as a society to allow - unbiased and unfettered - girls to do 'boy things', we exhibit far less comfort for things going in the other direction. Think of the connotations of 'tomboy' compared to 'sissy' (both terms we would do well to dispense with).

As we get older, businesswomen are often advised to behave more like their male counterparts to get ahead. People dispense this advice unironically, neglecting to acknowledge that it rarely, if ever, follows the other way around.

Another common snippet of advice peddled to women in business and breaking into male-dominated STEM careers is: be confident. This reads like a sick joke when we see from Abdelmoneim's experiment how early in their lives we have successfully chipped away at girls' confidence.

At just seven years old, kids have already been subject to intense social conditioning. No amount of STEM initiatives will do enough to unpick the fabric of the gender-coded society we have constructed. This will take fatiguing steps involving attention paid to intricate details: the micro-behaviours that shape how we move through society.

What Abdelmoneim finds frustrating in his classroom experiment is somewhat encouraging, though. A few small changes can have a significant impact. Taking baby steps to progress can feel like swimming against the tide, but it can potentially reap greater rewards over the long term than a sweeping directive declaring equality without addressing the myriad of small ways we internalise the opposite.

No More Boys and Girls concludes with episode two this week, moving from the classroom to the home, and I'm sure we have more to learn from Abdelmoneim's experiment.
Want stories like this and more direct to your inbox? Sign up for Tech Trends, Silicon Republic's weekly digest of need-to-know tech news.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls: Dismantling the gender gap starts in childhood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revelatory BBC documentary No More Boys and Girls shows how our micro-behaviours toward children perpetuate an unequal society. In case you missed it, last week, BBC broadcast the first steps on a journey to a gender-neutral culture for a selected group of seven-year-old kids in Lanesend Primary School on the Isle of Wight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Boys are stronger and have more jobs." - 7 year-old boy"Boys are fitter and stronger." - young girl"Men are better at being in charge." - 7 year-old girl"Boys are more important 'cause they can protect girls." - grade school boy What are girls better at? "Being pretty... and wearing dresses." - grade school girl

If these responses don't scare you, they should. After only seven years on this planet, children have shaped stereotypes about girls' and boys' natural abilities and potential to be leaders. And even though these quotes might sound like "positive" appraisals of boys, parents of boys need to be worried, too.
No More Boys and Girls?
BBC Two aired "No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Children Go Gender-Free?" last Thursday, the first episode of a two-part series. Dr. Javid Abdelmoneim undertook an experiment in an elementary school classroom in the U.K. to gauge attitudes about gender roles and gender stereotypes among young children; only seven years-old. He wants to explore whether these childhood beliefs impact inequality among adults? Along with interviewing the children, he collaborated with the teacher to try a couple strategies to change these attitudes.

While the goals and intent of this series are laudable, the title feels a bit sensational. Before the episode even aired, Twitter users lashed out, accusing the liberal media of trying to erase gender and forever scar our kids. To be clear, this experiment does NOT aim to erase gender from children wholesale; it tries to de-emphasize the role of gender in defining kids' abilities and attitudes.

But the experiment is a worthy and needed one. Even though they could have chosen a slightly better title, it did create buzz and dialogue. I hope the initial critics took the time to actually watch it, because we ALL need to question our own attitudes and use tangible strategies to change beliefs.

"No More Boys and Girls" highlighted three main problems for children:

1. Girls lack confidence. Boys overestimate themselves. Boys overestimate how well they will perform by about 3 times. While 50% of boys say they're "the best," only 10% of girls will say the same. Shouldn't all young kids think they're awesome? They haven't even hit puberty yet.

2. Boys have trouble with emotions. Whereas girls had many, many synonyms they could associate with each emotion, boys did not. The only exception was "anger," the one emotion that boys easily described. But they didn't necessarily know how to handle anger - a problem that won't get any easier in adulthood. And before people start throwing around Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus explanations, a cognitive neuroimaging expert weighed in on the differences between male and female brains. Professor Gina Rippon said that structurally, there are very few differences between the brains. Instead, brain development is "very much entangled with society, upbringing, and experiences."

3. Children believe outdated gender stereotypes about men and women from a young age. Regardless of gender, children mostly believed that boys are stronger, natural-born leaders, and girls' best asset is their appearance. They believed that makeup artists and dancers were always women, while mechanics and magicians were usually men.

The children's quotes above are disheartening, but sadly not too surprising.

The differences we're seeing...it's not because they were determined at the moment of conception. It's because a hungry brain arrives in the world and the world is instantly plunging it into a tsunami of pink and blue," Professor Rippon said.

How Do We Change Children's Perceptions About Gender?

The experiment targeted seven year-olds for good reason: while they have tangible beliefs, their beliefs are still "moldable."

Dr. Abdelmoneim worked with a very open-minded primary school teacher to implement strategies in the class to limit stereotypes that may damage children's long-term growth and potential, in and outside of education.

1. Make more inclusive spaces.

The coat closets had previously been separated by gender, for no reason other than tradition. Activity: the students painted over the coat closets and now could choose where to hang their coats. (No one was quite as thrilled about the prospect of merging bathrooms, and it's unclear if that actually happened.) With less separation of genders, kids will feel more unified as children instead of split into categories with pre-determined traits. Activity: The small library needed an overhaul, too. They found that far fewer of the lead characters were female. And many of the books enforced traditional gender stereotypes through hobbies and characteristics. After they fixed it, the kids gave a resounding "thumbs up" to the new library.

2. Highlight similarities; not differences.

The goal here was not to erase their gender, but de-emphasize its importance to education, school activities and learning. Activity. They hung signs on classroom walls, like "Boys are sensitive" and "Girls are strong." While I love that these slogans defy traditional stereotypes, they may actually diminish the goal of highlighting similarities because they group children into genders again. Why not hang signs that say "Children are caring" and "Students are strong"?

3. Even the playing field.

Many assume that boys are better at spatial skills and that girls prefer nurturing activities. But the experiment showed in the trailer where adults played with babies (dressed as opposite genders) was a dramatic reflection of the inherent biases we have, and how adults direct children into toys and activities based on those biases. They gave fluffy stuffed animals to the baby they thought was a girl, and gave robots and more physical play to the baby dressed as a boy.

We're trying to teach children that they can be what they want to be. But yet we're still forcing an identity on a child." - Adult participant in experiment

According to the professor, playing a game like Tetris (which focuses on geometric shapes) regularly for three months can actually the development of the brain to improve spatial skills. Activity: In the classroom, Dr. Abdelmoneim introduced tangrams so that every child would regularly flex that brain muscle.

4. Make kids see they're equally strong.

To combat the notion that "boys are stronger than girls," they used a fun carnival game. Until adolescence, boys and girls of the same physical size have absolutely no difference in strength. Activity: The kids estimated how high they could hammer the High Striker strength test, with most girls underestimating their ability.

Boys saw firsthand that many of the girls surpassed the boys' own scores. Sixty-three percent (63%) of boys had a tough time dealing with the results (there we go again with the emotions problem). We watched as one 7 year-old boy threw a tantrum on the floor, looking more like a 2 year-old than a primary school student. Boys need to know and accept that girls will outperform them regularly.

5. Diminish teacher bias in school.

The friendly teacher frequently used "love and sweet pea" to address the girls and "mate or fella" for the boys, so they hung a chart that let students keep tabs on his endearments. Activity: A basket of balls with students' names also helped diminish any teacher tendency to call on boys or favored students more often than others, especially for "leader activities" in the classroom. These activities are critical to make girls feel that their contributions are valuable and respected, and that they can take up just as much space, metaphoric and literal, as the boys.

6. Use the power of role models.

Kids were confident that certain jobs were only for men or women, such as firefighter or hairdressers. Girls' career aspirations included pop star and teacher, while one boy wanted to be a pilot. Activity: The teacher asked students to draw a magician and a mechanic (all drew men), and a makeup artist and dancer (all drew women). Then they met real adults in these professions who were the opposite gender from what the children expected. Possibly the most effective solution, when children get to meet role models, it forever alters their perceptions about what men and women can do, and their own potential.

How Can We Diminish Gender Stereotypes in Schools?

Part 2 of the series airs on Wednesday, and is set to explore whether these interventions worked! I can't wait to see it. In Part 2, I also hope to see a few more topics addressed:

Where do the children learn these stereotypes? While much of their learning happens at school, home is a huge influence and their family environment can play a major role in altering their beliefs. Also, do they grasp media literacy? The ability to analyze and critique the hundreds of media messages they receive every day is critical to their development.

More integration. The children thankfully sat in mixed-gender clusters of desks, but recess was very segregated. No news there. In addition to free play, which is very important, I'd love to see facilitated physical activities with all students. Do they have physical education (gym) class? Do they have the opportunity to run and compete together? This will undoubtedly increase girls' confidence and boys' understanding that girls are worthy competitors.

Value "feminine" traits. "No More Boys and Girls" had a slight undercurrent that we need to prove girls are just as good as boys. But the problem is deeper. Having girls act more like boys isn't the answer. I would love to see more emphasis placed on characteristics traditionally considered feminine, such as listening skills, compassion and kindness, and teamwork. Many boys possess these qualities too, but they are not valued in boys OR girls.

What do you think? Will girls in this class develop more confidence? Will boys learn how to identify their emotions and grapple with them? Will both girls and boys see themselves as equals?

For U.K. viewers, watch Episode 1 here. Information about Episode 2 here.

Outside of the U.K., watch the first episode here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls? A Series Review About Gender Stereotypes in Schools | Think or Blue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Boys are stronger and have more jobs." - 7 year-old boy "Boys are fitter and stronger." - young girl "Men are better at being in charge." - 7 year-old girl "Boys are more important 'cause they can protect girls." - grade school boy What are girls better at? "Being pretty...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No more girls and boys; can our children go gender free? BBC 2 tonight | Mumsnet Discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09202lp I heard PM in radio 4 discussing this research, it seems to hugely benefit girls in terms of their views on

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's been a fair bit of debate recently about the innate abilities of men and women. Most publicly, a memo from a male Google employee led to his dismissal, following his assertion that one of the reasons that there are less women in the company is because of biological differences. Another case saw complaints against Clarks for providing shoes for girls that were impractical and discouraged play and an active lifestyle.

It's a recurring theme. Many of my friends with young children maintain that their babies were just 'different' from the outset. Various studies over the years have proven that, at birth, this is not the case (at least in terms of brain structure). Yet the myth persists. You only need to look at any toy catalogue or clothes shop to see the divide - a swathe of blue versus pink. And this isn't just for children. Go to buy your stocking fillers in a few months and you can guarantee that there'll be sport-related gadgets for the men and makeup for the women.

The problem with unpicking these issues is that they're so endemic in society. A programme that aims to do just that is the BBC documentary "No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids go Gender Free?" The programme follows a Year 3 class whose children are challenged to face their gendered assumptions. In a country where gender equality is written into law and we have a female prime minister, some might be keen to brush this off as unnecessary, but the attitudes and beliefs of the children provide for thoughtful viewing.

None of it, for me, was particularly surprising. Initial testing showed that boys had lower emotional intelligence but much higher self confidence, and that girls were the opposite. When it came to assigning job roles and adjectives, they picked nurses and prettiness for the girls, and mechanics and strength for the boys. Of course, as this is a programme out to prove a point, the focus was on those children who offered the most extreme views, but the overall statistics showed these patterns.

Many responses to the Google memo were in agreement with him, citing personal experience of boys preferring or being better at certain tasks. This programme highlights the origins of some of this 'natural' thinking. Babies were dressed in clothing opposite to their gender, and a volunteer came to play with them. Straight away, those toys that were linked to caring or cuddling were offered to the 'girls,' while the more physical toys that developed spatial awareness were offered to the 'boys.'

To pretend that this is innate is to forget the huge influence that adults have on babies from the very moment they are born. As the brain is plastic, it develops certain areas more than others when it used more. Clearly, if certain play behaviours are encouraged at a young age, it will seem that boys and girls are 'better' when they get to school. That's not to say, of course, that there might well be girls who genuinely love pink and want to be nurses, and boys who like tractors and want to be a fireman. The danger is when these broad assumptions are painted over everyone.

One telling scene showed the children taking part in a 'test your strength' machine. Up until puberty, there is no difference in the muscle mass of children of the same size, yet all of the children predicted that the boys would do better. What's more, the boys found it harder to cope with defeat. It's a perfect example of how damaging gender stereotypes can be on both sides. A boy throws a tantrum, unable to express his emotions at not doing well. For the girls, they are limiting themselves before they have even begun. If left unchecked, it's easy to see where the employment futures, confidence levels and even proclivity to violence will end up.

That's not to say the solutions are easy. In the short documentary, a few tactics are trotted out which clearly have an effect. While the presenter notes that 'all schools' could get in a female mechanic and a male makeup artist to chat to the kids, or a more gender diverse reading selection, the reality is a little different. School budgets are tight and there is a syllabus to be covered. Relying on individual teachers isn't going to work, as experiences would be too limited. What I would like to see is a national initiative, built into the fabric of every school day, for all children.

Of course, at the other end of school, there are other, huge challenges. Working practices with relation to flexible hours, job sharing, the stigma of shared parenting, childcare, sexism in the workplace, all of these things are needed so that when these children do leave school, they are entering a world where their understanding of equality is matched by the world they find themselves in. With any luck, we can get on with creating that world for them, while they are discovering the limitless possibilities of themselves.

You can read other articles and fiction at https://sarahtinsley.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's been a fair bit of debate recently about the innate abilities of men and women. Most publicly, a memo from a male Google employee led to his dismissal, following his assertion that one of the reasons that there are less women in the company is because of biological differences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I think boys are cleverer than girls," says Louis, "because they get made into presidents easier, don't they?"

Tiffany agrees. "I think men are better at being in charge."

Louis and Tiffany are seven years old. They were born in 2010, the year that the Equality Act became law. But they, like their Year 3 classmates at Lanesend Primary on the Isle of Wight, have very clear ideas about what boys and girls should and shouldn't do.

Attempts to strip them of their gender-based preconceptions form the basis of a two-part BBC documentary, No More Boys and Girls, screened next week.

Enter Dr Javid Abdelmoneim. He is a doctor of emergency medicine, which is impressive, if ultimately irrelevant to the programme. Still, it qualifies him to talk about science on TV. And so, using one group of pupils as a control (that's how we know this is real science), he runs a series of tests on Lanesend's Year 3.

He found considerable differences between boys and girls. But these were not innate differences: they were socially imposed. For example, 50 per cent of boys described themselves as "the best", compared with only 10 per cent of girls.

'Boys are sensitive'

Caroline Sice, Lanesend headteacher, was shocked by these results. "We do a lot in school, anyway," she tells Tes. "We look at inspiriting women throughout history and today. We get in female captains and engineers. We make sure that girls and boys participate in all sports: we have mixed football and netball teams."

However, she says, she was aware that boys were still outperforming girls in maths, and girls were outperforming boys in literacy. "We wanted to see if there was more we could do to raise their confidence and their belief, in different areas of the curriculum," she says.

In an attempt to bring equality to the classroom, Dr Javid begins by sticking stereotype-breaking affirmations to the walls. "Girls are strong," one sign reads. "Boys are sensitive," another says.

Dr Javid also turns his attention to class teacher, Graham Andre. "His classroom was quite gender-biased towards the boys: superhero books and football cards," Ms Sice says. "Though girls had a good relationship with him, he was different with them."

Mr Andre tends to use terms of endearment for his pupils. In one morning, he calls the boys "mate" or "fella" 47 times. And he calls the girls "love", "darling" or "sweetpea" 104 times.

"What if Mr Andre called you all 'sweetpea'?" Dr Javid says.

"No!" the boys chorus. Some of them hide behind their chairs.

'A bit weird'

While Mr Andre struggles to change his ways, Dr Javid asks Year 3 about their career goals. "I think a hairdresser is a girl job, because...it's a girl job," says Louis.

Lily, too, has strong opinions: "If I thought of a nurse being a boy, it sounds a bit weird, and it would kind of look a bit weird, as well."

To tackle these preconceptions, Dr Javid introduces the children to a male dancer and male make-up artist, and a female car mechanic and female magician. Boys pirouette; girls learn to tell their carburettor from their exhaust.

Next, he asks the children to guess which of them will be the strongest, and which the weakest. The boys fight over who will be strongest, while the girls assume they will be weakest, thus demonstrating that boys and girls are equally inept at working out the fundamental premise of the programme they are filming.

And so, when Dr Javid brings on a strongman game, in which the children who hit the hardest with a hammer ring a bell, boys and girls perform equally well. There are tears on both sides: of happiness from the girls, and of frustration and impotence from the boys.

"We've got to keep doing these things," Ms Sice says. "It's about that exposure to different jobs, different opportunities all the time."

She plans to paste stereotype-breaking statements all around the school, but to take them further than Dr Javid: "Girls are great at maths," for example.

"It's about making things equal, definitely," she says. "It's important that the language we use for both boys and girls as they're learning is the language of self-belief, always."

No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? is on BBC Two at 9pm on 16 August.
Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls takes gender out the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I think boys are cleverer than girls," says Louis, "because they get made into presidents easier, don't they?" Tiffany agrees. "I think men are better at being in charge." Louis and Tiffany are seven years old. They were born in 2010, the year that the Equality Act became law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's a story we like to tell ourselves. Once upon a time, we were sexist, but then feminism happened and now we're not sexist anymore. But boys and girls carry on being different because they are different. Male brains are systematising and female brains are empathising, says Simon Baron-Cohen. Boys like blue and girls like pink, say the toy aisles. Men have a "drive for status", and women have "openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas," says that bloody Google engineer in his ten-page evo-psych anti-diversity manifesto. And if we are going to live happily ever after, we just have to learn to accept it.

Here are some other stories. "I think boys are cleverer than girls... because they get into president easily don't they?" "I would describe a girl as being pretty, lipstick, dresses, lovehearts. If a woman has a child, the men have to go to work and earn some money." "Men are better at being in charge." "Men are better because they're stronger and they've got more jobs." All these are things said by year three pupils at Lanesend primary school in the Isle of Wight, both girls and boys, who by the age of seven have thoroughly imbibed the idea that their sex is their fate. All of them are about to take part in an experiment designed to unpick that belief.

That experiment is actually a BBC 2 documentary called : Presenter Dr Javid Abdelmoneim finds that the boys are more likely to overestimate their abilities; the girls, to underestimate theirs. Girls are underscoring on confidence; boys, on empathy. Abdelmoneim isn't buying that this is all down to hormones or different physiques. At seven, boys and girls are evenly matched for strength, and will be until the testosterone surge of puberty has boys building muscle mass. There are no fixed differences in their developing brains. Genitals aside, they're simply kids. He wants to see whether teaching the kids differently will lead to them thinking differently.

First, the classroom environment has to change so sex is no longer the first division. Signs are put up affirming that boys and girls are sensitive, girls and boys are strong. The "girls' cupboard" and "boys' cupboard" where the children put their coats are repainted as one big gender-neutral wardrobe. Stereotyped books are swapped out for ones about adventurous girls and kind boys. The children have their career expectations shaken up by meeting a male ballet dancer, a female mechanic. And their likeable teacher, Mr Andre, has to change too: he's trained out of his habitual reference to the girls as "love" and the boys as "mate", and introduced to a lottery system to break his habit of picking boys first.

It's the smallness of these things that's really telling of the hugeness of the problem. Individually, they seem so trivial as to barely seem worth fixing, and so ingrained that trying to fix them takes constant vigilance (Mr Andre's slips into "love" and "mate" are recorded on a wall chart). No wonder sexism seems to be one of those things that everyone's against but no one sees as their problem to fix. The head, for example, speaks regretfully of "quite biased views about what boys are expected to do and what girls are expected to do." But somehow this has never translated into the kind of interventions Abdelmoneim is trying.

Does it work? That's the cliffhanger for episode two, but the first part suggests some pretty dramatic results. When the children take part in a test-your-strength contest, the difference between expectation and performance lead to tears: a girl who happily cries "I didn't think I could do it!" about her maximum score, and a boy who predicted himself a 10 but throws himself down on the ground in an angry tantrum when he fails to get a single point. How much stronger might girls be if they didn't absorb the myth of their own weakness and opt out of physical activity early? How much more resilient would boys be if they weren't holding themselves up to an unrealistic standard?

We won't know the answer to that unless adults are able to stop telling the same dull old gender stories to children. In one scene, the documentary reenacts the famous Baby X experiments, showing how adults direct infant play down strictly sex-stereotyped lines, pressing dolls on the baby in pink, and robots and shape sorters on the one in blue. But given the opportunity to be themselves first rather than their sex, the children of Laneseed seem to thrive. In fact, the only reform they chafe at are gender neutral toilets. ("The girls were like, 'Oh they [the boys] come out with their bits dangling out and they don't wash their hands,'" Abdelmoneim told the Mail.)

Watching No More Boys and Girls is a strange experience, validating and dispiriting at the same time. Yes, you see the evidence of sexism in action that's usually hidden in plain sight. You also see that there's so much of it, it's hard to know where to begin in countering it. Maybe we should start like this: stop insulting children by pretending their understanding of gender is hardwired at birth, and take some adult responsibility for the world we've put them in.

No More Boys And Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? starts on BBC2 at 9pm on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Girls and Boys shows the small things that shape children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's a story we like to tell ourselves. Once upon a time, we were sexist, but then feminism happened and now we're not sexist anymore. But boys and girls carry on being different because they are different. Male brains are systematising and female brains are empathising, says Simon Baron-Cohen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Leni Boudewijn discovered that she was expecting a girl, she prepared a pink themed nursery. Then, when Lily was an infant, she plied her with what she describes as "pink, frilly stuff." It was an unconscious decision and one Leni had never questioned, until her daughter recently started to reprimand her. "The other day I called her 'princess' and she corrected me," says Leni, 33. "She'll remind me if I say something that isn't gender neutral."

Lily's sudden awakening is the result of a controversial experiment. She is one of a class of 23 seven-year-old boys and girls from Lanesend primary school on the Isle of Wight to have spent a term 'gender neutral' - with all differences in the way the sexes are treated removed. The aim was to see whether such an approach could even out disparities in the children's confidence and abilties. The results are now being shown in a new two part BBC Two documentary, No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?

In the programme, Presenter Dr Javid Abdelmoneim introduces gender neutral loos and persuades parents to pack away their daughters' dolls. Signs reading "girls are strong" and "boys are sensitive" are hung on classroom walls, while books featuring passive princesses and aggressive superheroes are disposed of.

It is a provocative experiment at a time when the issue of gender in childhood has become increasingly contentious. Last year Caroline Jordan, president of the Girls' Schools Association, said teachers should consider using gender neutral language, and many schools - such as the heavily criticised Highgate school in north London, which did so last month - are introducing gender neutral uniform policies.

Children, it seems, are becoming increasingly preoccupied with gender, with a marked rise in the number saying they identify as being either of the opposite sex, or of no sex at all. Figures published by the NHS in May this year showed that more than double the number of girls compared to boys seek to use its gender identity development service, with 1,400 'assigned at birth' females seeking treatment, compared with 616 males in the past year.

Credit: Yui Mok/PA Archive

Critics, meanwhile, claim the experiment places an unhealthy emphasis on it, at an age when children are too young to ask questions. Conservative Party councillor Mary Douglas, has labelled it "abusive" and "inappropriate," and says: "Children in particular are very vulnerable and susceptible to what adults say. To even suggest that he or she might not be essentially male or female is potentially very harmful."

To which Dr Javid - an A&E doctor when not presenting - responds strongly: "One, this is absolutely not about gender identity. Two, in no way could you imagine anyone ever trying to steer children in a way that's harmful. We're talking about the BBC. I'm a Doctor. Their parents and teachers were involved. Three, watch the programme and then if you still want to hold that view - well, then you're daft."

Credit: Outline Productions/1

The documentary is predicated on Dr Javid's belief that boys' and girls' brains are almost identical. He is backed by Professor Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist at Aston University in Birmingham, who insists nurture, not nature, makes girls love dolls and boys like Lego.

"You start to say that if the biology is that similar, where do these differences come from? And there were differences," says Dr Javid.

Psychometric tests at the start of the experiment certainly show a stark divide. The boys are less able to express their emotions but more confident in their abilities, while the girls have lower self-esteem and a lesser ability to process numbers and shapes. All but one girl believe boys are "better" than them and their self-perception is largely limited to their appearance. One pupil, Kara, says "girls are better at being pretty" while another, Tiffany, declares "men are better at being in charge." The boys are similarly old-fashioned: little Louis says "girls look after the child and boys do lots of cool stuff," while Bradley declares "men are more successful because they could have harder jobs."

It is like stepping back into the Fifties. Class teacher, Graham Andre, and head Caroline Sice, both admit they were "shocked" by the results - not least because Sice had already attempted to improve equality in the school with talks on inspirational women and mixed sports teams. "I thought our children would be alright. But their mind set was very fixed," she admits.

Dr Javid says enforced gender roles start from birth with ubiquitous pink and blue congratulatory cards and "accumulate insidiously through the years with advertising, toys, clothing and our own attitudes."

As the mother of a six year-old girl and four year-old boy, I agree we can bombard our children with unhelpful sexist paraphernalia - but I am not convinced their views are all as archaic as those at Lanesend, or that their self-esteem is suffering as a result.

Yes, my daughter Rosie is obsessed with fairies, but she is more than confident enough to put her hand up in maths. Neither she nor her female friends feel inferior, and it simply hasn't occurred to her there might be certain jobs better suited to men.

Lily, meanwhile, seems exempt from the crisis sweeping her female classmates. Described as "outgoing" by Leni, a single mother who runs a bakery business from her home in Cowes, she wants to be a lawyer and didn't think there was any disparity between girls and boys before the experiment. "I thought they were equal," she tells me.

Another participant to have their eyes opened was Lily's teacher Andre, an affable man who would call his female pupils "sweet pea" and the boys "mate." Dr Javid tasked him to abandon the sexist prefixes, and the 45 year-old teacher admits that listening back to himself on the programme made him "cringe."

One of the biggest upheavals comes when Dr Javid tells parents to bag up their children's toys - a decision that is met with a wobbling lip by one princess-loving girl and incredulity by the mother of a boy who she says, despite her best efforts, has gravitated towards guns. It turns out Dr Javid doesn't advocate binning them, however. There was, he says, "a bit of a pinch of salt for TV to make it dramatic" adding "truthfully, it's not about taking things away but ensuring balance."

More contentious is the decision to introduce unisex loos. Andre has said that the parents were unhappy and the old system has since been restored. A spokesperson for the programme won't let him discuss it with me, saying it is "not something we need to focus on at the moment

Credit: Outline Productions/2

Three months after the cameras left Lanesend and Andre - now addressing pupils by name only - has had chance to reflect. He now firmly believes gender neutrality "is something we need to look at as a country and somehow get into the curriculum."

The risk is creating an issue around gender in schools where none exists. That said, the supremely confident Lily - now the proud owner of a Star Wars Lego set - is more ambitious than ever. "She realises she can achieve more and be stronger," says Leni. "Being gender neutral is fairer for her."

To critics, Dr Javid adds: "This is about giving children a full development so they can achieve absolutely anything they want. I'd challenge any sane and sensible adult to say we don't want that."
No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?, starts on BBC Two on August 16 at 9pm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happened when a primary school went gender-neutral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Leni Boudewijn discovered that she was expecting a girl, she prepared a pink themed nursery. Then, when Lily was an infant, she plied her with what she describes as "pink, frilly stuff." It was an unconscious decision and one Leni had never questioned, until her daughter recently started to reprimand her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free? (BBC2) caused a minor controversy before it aired, labelled "shocking" and "bold" by some reports, and even "potentially very harmful" by Grassroots Conservatives' reliably facile Mary Douglas. This is not surprising. Such is the frenzy and hysteria about trans lives right now - particularly from otherwise sensible and compassionate people who have a blind spot when it comes to empathising with transgender people - that "gender-free" invokes a ridiculous bogeyman image of, say, experimental Scandinavian neutrality where saying "boy" or "girl" is forbidden, or pre-puberty hormone-blockers being forced upon girls who are tomboys. It is transparently a disproportionate and irrational fear, yet it's little wonder that a show that promises to discuss gender with a classroom full of seven-year-olds has stoked these paranoid flames.

The title, though, is far more fiery than anything contained in the programme, which isn't even vaguely about questioning gender identity. This two-part documentary, the brainchild of presenter and Médecins Sans Frontières doctor Javid Abdelmoneim, is actually a rather gentle social experiment that asks: what would happen to a classroom of seven-year-olds if they weren't treated differently as boys and girls? This translates to such things as painting the pink and blue coat cupboards a universal orange and no longer segregating children according to gender, or introducing the kids to people who have jobs they might not expect, such asa female mechanic or a male dancer, or reading them stories in which the princess is also the hero of the story, and does not need rescuing by a prince. Potentially very harmful, indeed.

This kind of thing has been explored on TV before, with Channel 4's Secret Life Of ... series, which put four, five and six-year-olds through a series of psychological tests and came to largely the same conclusions. Broadly speaking, girls have lower self-esteem than boys, while boys struggle to express their emotions, and "gendered" interests - mechanics for boys, makeup for girls - are fixed early on in a child's development. According to the various scientists and medical professionals Abdelmoneim interviews, there is no biological reason that these should be pre-determined.

Yet adults unwittingly pander to these stereotypes. There's a curious experiment within an experiment in which babies are dressed up as the opposite gender, and volunteers choose toys for them to play with. The babies dressed as girls get dolls and fluffy animals; those dressed as boys are handled more roughly, and put on bikes. It's crude science but it is an effective demonstration of the large part adults play in upholding these ideas. The class teacher, Mr Andre, who begins by calling girls "love" and "darling" and boys "fella" and "mate", is incredibly receptive to Abdelmoneim's suggestions, and his openness to being shown what he might do differently is admirable.

heeky chappie Riley insists that men are better because "they're stronger and they've got more jobs", while Kara free-associates what she connects with being a girl: "pretty, lipstick, dresses, lovehearts". But this has a darker side. One girl already thinks of herself as "ugly"; Riley thinks it isn't okay to cry if you're a boy. They're seven years old. Abdelmoneim is measured and persuasive about the implications for when they become adults. Such rigid stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, in which men repress their emotions and women think they're worthless, are what's really harmful, not daring to ask interesting questions about why we think and act the way we do.

Celebrity MasterChef (BBC1) is back, filling the MasterChef-shaped hole in our lives. John Torode explains that, in this competition, celebrities get the chance to show "another talent", which is kind to some of the celebrities set to appear, who barely have a primary talent. Not so with this opening bunch though, who are all perfectly pleasant high-achievers who also know their way around a steak knife. When ordinary people go on MasterChef, it's because they have a modicum of culinary skill. Celebrity MasterChef is more fun because, in recruiting people solely because they are well-known, there's more chance of a deconstructed pork pie-style car crash. In that respect, this opener is a let down, because the meals are all edible-looking. But I'm hopeful that Jim 'Vic Reeves' Moir can bring something to the mix eventually. He survived adding beetroot flavoured with orange oil to a corned beef hash and poached egg this week, but there are plenty more rounds to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free? review - reasons to start treating children equally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free? (BBC2) caused a minor controversy before it aired, labelled "shocking" and "bold" by some reports, and even "potentially very harmful" by Grassroots Conservatives' reliably facile Mary Douglas. This is not surprising.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It wasn't until I began collecting items that I realised why she thought I might be presented with such difficulties. Browsing around Mothercare I was greeted with a swathe of blue for baby boys and pink for the girls. For those of us who had chosen not to find out, there was a neutral section between the two of greys and creams. How dull, I thought, realising this is the section I 'should' be selecting from.

How ridiculous, when you think about it. A baby doesn't care or even know what they are wearing. So why not dress them in what's most comfortable, and if there is a colour preference, it should be our own as the one looking at them all day. If I like pink, why couldn't I buy that colour for my baby, no matter what gender?

Recently gender issues have been in the spotlight, first with an open letter written by an annoyed mother to Clarkes shoes about the lack of sturdy, hard-wearing and supportive footwear for her daughter.

Frustrated mum Jem Moonie-Dalton described the selection for boys as "designed with running and climbing in mind" compared to those for girls which were "not comfortable or suited to outdoor activities".

"What messages are you giving to my daughter?" she asked. "That she doesn't deserve shoes that put her on equal 'footing' with her male peers?"

Then, BBC2 broadcast the first episode of No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free? On August 16 which looks at whether the way we treat boys and girls is really the reason we haven't achieved gender equality. In it, eight-year-old girls at a school on the Isle of Wight described their own sex using words such as "pretty and lipstick" whereas the boys described the male population as "strong and leader". It was saddening and shocking to watch.

But is it any surprise that these children have ingrained, sexist views about males and females at such a young age, when subliminal messages are being presented to them from birth?

After my baby boy was born my husband went out to buy a bath seat. He called me up from the shop with a dilemma - they only had pink. I laughed at the ridiculousness of his problem, instructing him to buy the pink one. But really it's not funny, and instead highlights the insidious messages being passed from us to our children about the perceived differences between males and females. From birth, girls are meant to wear pretty, floral, pastel clothes covered in bunny rabbits and kittens while the boys wear bold colours with designs including lions, sharks, fire engines and robots.

As they grow up, girls play with dolls and kitchens while boys are given cars, trains and bricks. Yet some psychologists have argued that the toys children play with could make a difference to the jobs they choose in the future, explaining why some professions are more dominated by males. It also has an impact on their skills and how their brains develop.

The campaign Let Toys Be Toys believes that all children should have the chance to pick the toys that suit them and not be limited by what someone has decided is 'for girls' or 'for boys'. Play is crucial to child development - toys focused on action, construction and technology are thought to hone spatial skills, foster problem solving and encourage children to be active. While dolls are thought to develop social skills such as empathy. Yet it is still seen as socially unacceptable to give a boy a doll to play with. What message is this giving our children? That the care givers should be the female population?

As my son grows up, I intend to give him a range of toys to play with and allow him to decide his preference. I hope that by the time he goes to nursery, if he chooses to play with dolls, it won't be seen as odd. However, I suspect that's too much to ask of society too soon. The fact we are talking about gender stereotyping is a start. Let's hope those who can make a real difference - particularly the manufacturers of children's toys and clothes - listen and take action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why I intend to give my son dolls to play with

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"How can you prepare if you don't know if it's a boy or girl?" A friend asked me when I informed her I was going to keep the sex of my baby a surprise. What on earth would my baby need that could possibly be determined by its gender, I wondered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free? (BBC2) | iPlayerThe Big Family Cooking Showdown (BBC2) | iPlayerValkyrien (C4) | All 4Dangerous Borders (BBC2) | iPlayerQuacks (BBC2) | iPlayer

Pointlessly unwieldy title of the week - against, as we shall come to see, some stiff competition - was No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free? Managing to combine foot-in-mouth length and borderline dystopian threats with that irreducibly twee 'kids', it turned out to encompass nothing more sinister than an exploration of simple equality: the first of a rather splendid two-parter in which Dr Javed Abdelmoneim aided by some impossibly sunny children and teachers on the Isle of Wight, sought simply to address the balance in expectations among seven-year-olds, depending on whether they're a boy or a girl.

And, my, there was some imbalance. The shops are to blame, of course (the pink-blue divide is now just rank in its spangled shamelessness), but so too the parents: two mothers had walk-in dress-up wardrobes filled with "princess" accoutrements for their daughters. At school, the girls were unquestioning in their belief that boys were, somehow, "better", and certainly "stronger": for a generation born in the year of the 2010 Equality Act, it was quite a shocker.

The presenters of Cooking Showdown looked like they'd first met that morning in the lift between floors

During the term, Dr Javed tried some relatively gentle experiments at redress. By demonstrating, empirically, that, at seven, girls and boys possess equal muscles (this changes only at puberty), and, most successfully I thought, by bringing to the school a female mechanic, and magician, and a male ballet dancer and makeup whiz: the children seemed excited, delighted, to have their assumptions so thumpingly challenged.

I don't think I'm spoiling things by saying that next week some mothers are astonished (to the point of tears) at the rise in their daughters' confidence. The boys, too, become more empathetic: the difference more marked over the term but, given their starting point (anger was the only emotion for which most had any kind of a lexicon) and the huge preponderance of postpubertal men in jail, this was surely a good thing.

I'd deem this by and large a success: the only experiment the children really balked at was unisex loos. Me too: while generally all for smashing the cistern, you have nothing to lose but your chains, I draw a line here.

The Big Family Cooking Showdown was also a crime against programme titles. And much else. If going for an unwieldy tongue-botherer, why not, simply: "We've Lost Bake Off. Sorry (Again). Here's Something Else, Only Not At All Special". It did have families in it, admittedly, and cooking - because that's just what telly needs, more delish middle-class pot-stirring - but big it wasn't, showdown it definitely wasn't, and the four presenters/judges - Zoë Ball, Nadiya Hussain, Georgio Locatelli and Rosemary Shrager - looked like they'd met that morning in the lift between floors.

I think the BBC have something else in the oven, with Mary Berry and Claudia Winkleman, which is very wise, since this does not deserve to succeed. We had a couple of nice bland families cooking ... somethings, as they do most weeks of the year, yet the introduction of the supposedly "special" element, that of the family, was nothing special at all really, and certainly not when set against anguished individuals fighting existential battles weekly for the very soul of croquembouche.

The corporation has already blinked, moving the Big Slowdown so as not to clash with the imminent Bake Off: Channel 4 even seems to be winning in the trailers, with a marvellous taster and finally a good use for McCartney's Frog Chorus other than their being gently sauteed in garlic. I foresee another Top Gear meltdown of hand-wringing as only a corporation can manage: a firing-squad standing in a circle.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

'Beguiling': Sven Nordin as Ravn, the 'underground' surgeon in Valkyrien Photograph: GSN/Channel 4

For succinct titles we had to go to Channel 4, and the sparse, utterly beguiling eight-parter, Valkyrien- both the name of the intriguing dark caff above the intriguing dark abandoned Oslo underground station, and Odin's handmaidens, who had the job of ferrying warriors from the battlefield of life to Valhalla.

Thus the netherworld of the latest in the Walter Presents strand, in which our antihero, shaggy and embittered doctor Ravn, is engaged in ferrying his dying wife to the shorelands of a cure. Quite illegally. Thus he needs the help of Leif, an unusually sane conspiracy theorist whose job entails managing the city's abandoned tube stations, including the one that now houses Ravn's laboratory.

It's been compared, naturally enough, to Breaking Bad, but in fact it zips along with even more pace, twists and thorny moral dilemmas: and, for all its undertones, blinks into hopeful sunlight surprisingly often. If you can navigate the timeshifts and backflashes in the first couple of episodes, it's absurdly good, acted with conviction and aplomb, and it's no coincidence that this was watched by the population of Norway that wasn't watching cookery programmes about how to make your buried sharkmeat more rancid.

In the BBC's big Partition strand, one standout has been Dangerous Borders, in which two highly personable presenters, Babita Sharma and Adnan Sarwar, travel either side of the India-Pakistan line and find that there is much more in common between the desert tribes, the cultures, the religions even, who share the selfsame backbreaking work over those thousands of miles than ever deserved to divide them. In fact, nothing that even the most boneheaded politicians - ours 70 years ago (and, my, doesn't Mountbatten come out of it badly, in his vainglorious mix of vaulting entitlement and congenital idiocy?) and India/Pakistan's today - couldn't have reasonably avoided. But won't, obviously, as long as there are guns to be made and religious hatreds to be stoked, and bugger the poor tens of millions who actually live there. Coming soon: World's Most Stupid Borders. Hurrah for God.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

No laughs yet: Rupert Everett in Quacks. Photograph: Mark Johnson/BBC/Lucky Giant

I wanted to love Quacks, Rory Kinnear and Rupert Everett hamming it up with much snot, grist and ether, prat-slipping all over the ichor-soaked boards of Victorian London. But, if I didn't actually laugh once, does it deserve to be billed as a comedy? Still. It's written by James " Rev" Wood, has a winningly short title, and even Blackadder started pretty poorly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The week in TV: No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free?; The Big Family Cooking Showdown and more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free? (BBC2) | iPlayerThe Big Family Cooking Showdown (BBC2) | iPlayerValkyrien (C4) | All 4Dangerous Borders (BBC2) | iPlayerQuacks (BBC2) | iPlayer Pointlessly unwieldy title of the week - against, as we shall come to see, some stiff competition - was No More Boys and Girls: Can Kids Go Gender Free?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No More Boys and Girls, Dr Javid Abdelmoneim asks can our kids go gender free?