Just wanted to say something real quick about this boys-only grade school proposal in Toronto. I'm sure the proponents of the idea have some well-reasoned claims about the whole concept (or maybe I'm giving them too much credit), but I'm going to pick on a defense of the idea that I noticed in the comments on the story, one that I've heard in general form before.
It goes something like this. Boys, as we all know, are rambunctious and easily distracted. There comes a time when this distraction is directed in a particular way by puberty, towards sexual desires. And, as we all know, boys are sexually attracted to girls, and with the way those girls dress these days, why, it's no surprise that boys have trouble concentrating on math! Solution: remove the temptation.
Not only does this line of reasoning perpetuate the idea that males are ruled by their sexual urges (and implicitly denies that females experience such drives at all) but it completely erases queer boys from the picture. If the goal is really to separate out boys from what's distracting them, then shouldn't the queer and straight boys be separated, too? Or are we to assume that queer boys are "like" girls, in that they don't have sexual interests (at least not that we'd like to talk about). More likely, this argument ignores these questions because it assumes that queer kids don't even exist.
Like I said, this line of argument is probably more common among those who'd like to see this proposal extended up into later years of education, but I think it's worth really interrogating it nonetheless.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not only does it erase queer boys, but also trans girls. And asexual kids. Yeah, it's a crap argument based on the faulty premise that everyone is cis and heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteYes, and I'm sorry to not have mentioned them as well. I wonder how proponents would define "boy", if pressed?
ReplyDeleteCan't we designate an island for people who perpetuate such nonsense, so they can live free to be their freaky selves, unfettered by those who seek guidance from reason and experience?
ReplyDeleteI know we can't, because that, too, is a form of discrimination, perhaps the only form that tempts me.