It’s probably never occurred to most parents that there may be gender discrimination inherent in the traditional Father-Daughter dance or Mother-Son sporting event, but in one Rhode Island school district, these gender-specific events have been banned with the help of the ACLU.
As sweet as a Daddy-Daughter dance is, one need only imagine the little girl who, for whatever reason, does not have a father in her life. Maybe she’s being raised by a single mother because of a parental separation or death. Or maybe her father is serving overseas in the military. Perhaps she’s being raised in a two-mom family. Regardless, she is left out. The same, of course, is true for a son who wouldn’t be able to attend a mother-son event like a baseball game for any of the reasons listed above.
Even beyond the parental gender issues, there is the problem that boys wouldn’t be allowed to attend the father-daughter dance, and girls couldn’t go to the sporting event.
Newser explains the ACLU’s stance:
The ACLU hailed the change, which was instituted months ago, reports the Providence Journal. “Public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games,” said a prickly statement. “The time has long since passed for public school resources to encourage stereotyping from the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella, not even in Cranston.”
What do you think of the ban? Is it all in the name of fairness and inclusion, or an overreaction to an obsessively politically-correct culture? Will something be lost if we ban gendered parent-child events?
Photo courtesy of USAG-Humphreys/Flickr
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
You mention “Mother – Son” events, but in fact, this was shut down by a mother complaining about the Father – Daughter events and quite frankly I highly doubt anyone would have gotten involved if there were ONLY Mother – Son events and no Father – Daughter events. Just another example of “We can’t have dads meaning anything special to their kids”
Many men (and mothers of sons raised objections to “take your daughter to work day,” so much so that many employers changed it to “take your child to work day.” I agree that singling out one gender of kids for a special event seems discriminatory.
Overzealous political correctness, in my book.
If something is banned because one (or several) people can’t attend, then we’ll end up doing nothing special, because there’ll always be an exception to the rule. Should we ban sports carnivals, because some kids can’t run due to medical conditions?
And what about all the girls who actually enjoyed the dance? And the fathers who saw it as a highlight of their daughter’s childhood? And the mothers who wanted to go to the baseball game with their sons? They all miss out now on those events, instead replaced with another bland, equally-balanced “take your non-gendered child to the non-gender-specific-event with the non-gendered parent” event.
I don’t know know Alister, you could have the same event without creating unnecessary barriers for others. Why not simply call it “Parent-child dance” and “Parent-child sporting event” and let people self-select without creating subtle messages about exactly who should be doing what.
Everyone who reads this article and agrees that it is discriminatory should watch the “South Park Christmas Concert” Episode.
Folks, when South Park is realistic and actually reflects the world we live in, we have seriously gone off the tracks somewhere.
I don’t think they’re really that bad as long as there are equal events for girls and boys and each parent has an equal chance at participating. We have different teams for girls and boys. There are even different sports for girls and boys.
@ John Schtoll
“I highly doubt anyone would have gotten involved if there were ONLY Mother – Son events and no Father – Daughter events.”
When people discussed Title IX, some people (a very small minority) argued that it should look at all the expenditures / extra curricular / student activities and student services when determining compliance. I’ve heard of compliance officers for athletic department that mostly serve boys / men, but haven’t heard of any for student life / support or a compliance department for poetry readings or performance art events. Look at all the controversy surrounding SFU’s men’s center.
Speaking as someone who has worked in school administration for many years, and even ran a school for several years, I can share my experience with this. Cranston is not the first place it has come up. It has come up many times, many places, and until now, perhaps, has not gotten national attention. I will simply state my views as a school administrator who has dealt with this:
1. Many parents and children struggle with Mother/Son and Father/Daughter events, because they are painful when one parent is not in the picture.
2. A way around this is very simple: You make it clear that another beloved male or female adult may accompany the child if the parent of that gender is not in the picture for whatever reason. We used to have a “Bring your grandparents to school day” and because lots of people complained that grandparents were dead or lived far away, that became “Grandparents and Special Friends” day where students could bring grandparents if they had them, someone else if they didn’t. This does not solve the pain of parents or grandparents who are not in a child’s life for whatever reason, but schools cannot solve that problem, and it’s part of life to learn to deal with it. But schools can be SENSITIVE and try to make things better for these kids. That hurts no one.
4. Making the events gendered is a problem. Not all girls relish putting on the fancy dresses and going to a dance! I didn’t. My own daughter didn’t. Both of us skipped those events in our childhoods and wished we’d had other options. There are many, many options for these types of events that are not going to alienate boys or girls who do not fit into our society’s gender boxes. There are picnics, carnivals, themed dinners, etc. No need for the gendering.
Finally, a word about “political correctness.” That has become a very dismissive, problematic word at times. Let’s look at the issues without reflexively dismissing them in this way. As someone who has personally dealt with many, many genuinely upset parents and children, I really do not feel that calling this political correctness is fair. I’d like us all to be more humane than that. My two cents!
#1 – I agree with that point and sympathize with it, but I think it’s a terrible reason to do away with such events altogether. Every enjoyable activity or circumstance can be painful to people who can’t enjoy it or share that circumstance. Pandering to that in the name of empathy would have absurd results.
#2 – I agree with your workaround involving sensitivity and accommodations to broaden the accessibility of the event to those who wish to participate. I think that’s much better than the “no one can have that fun if anyone can’t have that fun” approach.
#3 – You skipped a #3, so to cover all my bases, I’ll compliment you on how you would have phrased it, while nitpicking some nuance I probably would have disagreed with.
#4 – Sometimes making events gendered is an acknowledgement. As long as it’s not prescriptive (i.e. “girls must enjoy dancing”, “boys must enjoy baseball”), is it really so preposterous to notice some gendered tendencies in those activities and design activities that match? I still support planning generic activities like picnics, dinners, etc., but I don’t feel outraged that when thinking of an activity to appeal to kids to do with opposite-gendered parents, that dances and sports events would come up as fitting that bill. It’s a high percentage bet to make, and again, as long as no one is forced to follow the gender trend, and other activities are also planned, and there are accommodations (see #2) for people outside the target demographic who want to participate, I don’t think this is gender discrimination.
And finally, I agree with you that “political correctness” has become a dismissive and problematic phrase. I don’t think this is one of those cases, and to me, even though I almost always agree with ACLU positions, this looks like out of control political correctness, not out of control gender discrimination.
Although I have never attended a Father-Daughter Dance, or even had the opportunity to, it is beyond absurd to ban fathers from a bonding experience with their daughters. Doesn’t the ACLU have anything better to do than harassing fathers who actually want to be a part of their daughters’ lives? Why doesn’t the ACLU go after the fathers who wanted children but don’t bother to be in their daughters’ lives. I mean, come the heck on.
Let’s ban the basketball team because some kids are too short and slow to compete. Life doesn’t deal everyone the exact same hand. Unfortunately, not everyone could attend such a dance with their father, for one reason or another. But, not having that dance won’t magically conjure up a father. There will be many other situations (contrary to the argument of many of the commenters on the Gay Dad article) where having a father (and a mother) comes in darn handy.
But, nobody is required to attend. If girls don’t want to dress up, they aren’t forced to attend. If boys don’t like sports, they aren’t required to attend. A lesson for everyone is that you don’t need to do what others do. Be yourself, regardless of what others do or don’t do. But, don’t rob the girls who DO want to dress up and dance.
Did you actually read my comment? Did I promote banning? I believe I promoted *broadening*. Is that a problem? Can traditions evolve over time in ways that make them better for more people?
I read it but note that I didn’t comment on it. Mine was a comment on the story in general.
However, since you asked, I have no problem with the replacement dad, whether it be a grandfather, uncle, cousin or family friend. I have seen that done any number of times, and it’s entirely reasonable and compassionate.
On the other hand, your point number four robs girls of something many like to do, dresstip. It does, in effect, bans the father daughter dress up dance.
If you want to add a carnival or something for those who don’t want to dress up, fine. But, why take something away that some kids actually enjoy? That’s not a solution.
By the way, if you’re going to take the position that a dress up event is wrong because it’s (your word) gendered, you are arguing against proms, since they are also a dress up events and therefore also “gendered.” If ever there was a politically correct word. . .
Or you let gay kids bring dates and not shut proms down because of that.
Of the tens of thousands of proms, hhat doesnt solve the problem. Proms would need to go to a casual dress code and exclude
dancing.
My apologies, Eric. My new reading glasses have been ordered but have not arrived yet–seriously! It must have looked like that was a reply to my comment. So sorry.
I’m all for options for boys and girls–the more the better. If a school can afford the time and money for multiple events, then I support different events. If only one can be afforded, I support whatever has the broadest appeal and leaves the fewest kids out.
Julie, hear hear for gay kids going to proms! When they are shut out, that makes me want to see proms canceled!
And if anyone thinks that’s politically correct, or any of my other language is, they are entitled to their opinion. Eric, you have your opinion. I just want what’s best for kids, and articulate it in the clearest way possible..
My cynicism tingles.
I must admit that this is quite a surprise. Seeing someone wanting to get rid of something because their may not be a father to participate. Quite different from when the British Health Service removed all mentions of dads from their reading material and when that school in Scotland a few years ago stopped letting kids make Father’s Day cards in class. In those cases it was a matter of basically, “What about the mommies!!!!”
Are you KIDDING me, Danny?
What about the mommies?
This is about gender discrimination and inclusiveness. You’re turning this into a gender conspiracy theory.
You know how many kids in my son’s class make father’s or mother’s day cards and have no one to send them to? It’s terribly, terribly sad and you’re turning this into a soapbox for anti-feminist conspiracy theories. It’s boggling my mind.
How could it be about gender discrimination if there is also a mother-son outing? If they want more family configurations accommodated, just add them – don’t rob girls of special time with their fathers. That’s just wrong.
First off I said my cynicism tingles for a reason. As in I am probably thinking too much into this or that whole presumption of worst faith habit I have is kicking off again.
Secondly:
Are you KIDDING me, Danny?
No I’m not.
On the British Health Service bit:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/britain-abolishes-itself/
About the Father’s Day in Scotland thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2176315/Fathers-Day-cards-banned-in-Scottish-schools.html
Thirdly my cynicism tingled because it seems that in this whole bit about “political correctness” and “the changing world” cutting out dads is fine as long no one messes with the moms. Again I say cynicism rather than skepticism because it’s based on my feelings about the events as they happen rather than some well thought out scientific analysis.
Fourth:
You know how many kids in my son’s class make father’s or mother’s day cards and have no one to send them to?
I’m not sure but I’ll bet the first time your son’s school administration tried to get rid of one of them (and only one of them) I bet you’d have a problem with it.
Oh and fifth Joanna if you don’t take anything else away from this exchange remember this one thing:
It’s terribly, terribly sad and you’re turning this into a soapbox for anti-feminist conspiracy theories.
YOU are the one that brought feminism into this, not me.
“What about the mommies”? Did you not mean that about feminism? Maybe you just meant society in general. If so, I apolgize.
In this particular article, we’re talking about ALL gendered events, including mother-son baseball game outings, etc.
So I just don’t see why you’re soapboxing about not making Father’s Day cards in the UK when what we’re talking about is an across-the-board ban in order to stop exclusion.
Lori had some great ideas about how to not necessarily ban an event, but to make it more inclusive, but your mostly-unrelated links seem to me like soapboxing an agenda.
Look Joanna I’ve already explained my thought process behind this. I openly announced my cynicism and explained it and even explained that it was more emotional than analytical.
I have no agenda so quit trying to prescribe one to me so that you can have a reason to say I’m soap boxing. You asked was I kidding and I explained to you that no I wasn’t and called myself trying to save you the trouble of looking up those things I said (or at least saving you the trouble of asking for references).
I said it, you questioned it, I explained it, you have decided my explanation wasn’t what I meant by it and decided to tell me what I really meant so you can go on a pre-programmed rant about soap boxing.
For the record I like Lori’s ideas at trying to make such events more inclusive and think they are preferable to just cutting certain sides out of the equation for the sake of political correctness or a changing world.
I would like to speak the issue of “inclusiveness”. The problem I have with it is that it waters down the “specialness” of the event. This is a difference of opinion, IMO but every child needs the strong and tender love from a father FIGURE and mother FIGURE. Events like these should be special memories for each child.
Is it narrow minded? Yes, one could view it that way, but realize that narrow isn’t always bad (again IMO). I love that one comment that referenced the South Park Christmas episode. Scary when life imitates art.
I know that part of why I’m close to my daughters is because I was involved with them and that one night I put on my suit and they put on their pretty dresses and we had a wonderful time and a lifelong memory. Perhaps that memory will help them know they are cherished, worthy to be pursued and loved deeply.
Is it about underlining the specialness of their femaleness?
Because if that’s something important for the kid (not something other people deem important, but them personally), they can have other ways to signify it without those ways being exclusive me-only events. Same way you can wear clothing and signify your uniqueness without it being me-only clothing others get beaten up for wearing.
Why does specialness need to mean exclusive (and completely arbitrary) access to social gender norms, in order to make SURE that they feel “special” and “unique” in a 50% way (ie not unique one bit)?
We reward conformism and punish dissension so hard, you’d think we were fascist states.
Even if there’s a Mother-Son event and a Father-Daughter event, that still doesn’t include everyone. If you’re the daughter of a single mother, you and your mom don’t have a sponsored event. If you’re the son of a single father, you and your dad don’t have a sponsored event. There must be millions of kids in the U.S. in these situations.
“Parent-child” sounds really bland and vague. Maybe there’s a more interesting phrase someone can come up with?
No, that leaves out children with no parents, such as those raised by other relatives. Hence, that is discriminatory as well.
The only way to not discriminate against anyone is to do nothing.
What a wonderful thing this ant-male political correctness is.
Some school discrimination may simply be unavoidable. High school graduation ceremonies are clearly discriminatory – they only celebrate the students who completed their degree. Isn’t that discrimination against failing students and their families?
Yes, and Gay Pride is so discriminatory against straight people, right? Your argument makes as much sense.
Let’s see if that works for having kids…
“As sweet as it is to raise a family, one need only imagine people who, for whatever reason, can’t have kids. Maybe they have a medical reason that renders them infertile. Or maybe they never found that right person to settled down with and have kids, even though they wanted kids very much. Perhaps they’re in a same-sex relationship and love kids, but can’t afford reproductive treatments or live somewhere that discriminates against same-sex couples trying to become parents. Regardless, they are left out.”
If the solution to the sad little girl problem is getting rid of Daddy-Daughter dances, what would be a comparable solution to the problem of sad infertile people?
I say to this: Celebrate the kids and their parents, don’t make it a girly thing. Don’t make it a boyish thing. Make it a parent-child moment.
There is no reason that it is gendered. Same as many things who are entirely arbitrarily gendered (lace, ruffles, skirts, dress-like garments, tights, heels) many of those even went from one to the other (heels and tights for example – initially male-only garments).