One of the glorious benefits of being Australian and Irish is enjoying how both countries can improve upon the English language, delivering rich colloquialisms that often defy easy translation.
Try as I might, I cannot find a Hiberno-English equivalent to the Australian term “sook”. The word means to whinge or complain, but that doesn’t go far enough, because a complaint can be valid and whingeing feels like something a child would do. “Sook” provokes a more visceral reaction. It hints that the person to whom the insult is being directed doesn’t have the right to find fault and that they must lack a critical sense of self-awareness if they’re going to get upset in the first place.
The phrase “go have a sook” is a sarcastic invitation to sulk. It’s best delivered with narrowed eyes and a tongue-clicking “tut” noise. Usually it’s uttered between siblings having a disagreement about whose turn it is to sit in the front seat of the car, but this week a debate over same-sex education has seen the insult plastered all over the internet.
A fee-paying, all-boys school in Sydney announced plans to become co-ed. That news itself didn’t go viral. Instead it was footage of the parents, alumni and others protesting over the decision at the school gates that got social media riled up. “I’m an old boy and my son is an old boy and the intention is that I’d have a grandson,” said one protester, overcome with emotion, his voice breaking and nose sniffing. “But I won’t bring him to a co-ed school.”
The man seemed to be on the verge of tears over girls attending the same school he once did, and the one he wanted to send his – hypothetical – grandson to.
[ Number of schools switching from single sex to co-ed increases significantlyOpens in new window ]
The internet reacted with as much sympathy as you would expect to the parents and alumni of a school that charges about €25,000 a year in fees. The old boys’ network was told to “go have a sook”.
But did they have a point – does same-sex education still have a place?
Those hoping to find proof that this type of school is better for kids will be greeted with mixed research. In 2023, a study from the University of Limerick involving 5,000 15-year-olds determined that there was no significant difference in academic performance in those attending single-sex schools. In the same year, results of Australia’s national standardised numeracy and literacy test showed that both boys and girls who went to a single-sex school scored higher, with results adjusted to account for socioeconomic differences.
Oddly, the online petition to keep the private school a boys-only place mentions improved academic performance as a “potential benefit”, but only in the fourth paragraph from the top. The argument instead seemed to revolve around ambiguous but important-sounding terms such as “culture” and “values”. According to the petition, the school has “always been a place for boys to grow into men, surrounded by their brothers”.
“It’s where we learned about camaraderie, leadership, and respect,” we are told. But why would boys need to be separated from girls to learn about respect or leadership? Does camaraderie only exist between men? Do boys not grow into men if girls are in the same classroom: do girl germs stop them from emerging out of their chrysalises?
If we argue that boys are disadvantaged by the presence of girls in their classrooms, how can we expect them to believe this doesn’t extend into other areas of their adult lives?
I don’t buy into the argument that all-male schools are breeding grounds for toxic masculinity. I have mates from all-boys schools with healthy attitudes towards women and I know men from co-eds who are utter turds to every woman unlucky enough to cross their paths.
In this case, it’s less about the individual and more about what kind of larger statement is being made. The creeping suggestion is that men are too distracted by women and vice versa, and that the two sexes cannot exist in the same environment without adverse consequences.
These schoolyard fears only rarely translate to the real world. I was sent to an all-girls school partly out of a fear that I would “dumb down” in front of boys. I can say with full confidence I have never been tempted to do this in my life – not in academia nor work nor in the pub nor in my living room, playing a viciously competitive game of Scrabble with my partner.
The school at the heart of the debate argues that going co-ed gets the students ready for an outside world that “will require them to walk and work alongside all genders”. If we argue that boys are disadvantaged by the presence of girls in their classrooms, how can we expect them to believe this doesn’t extend into other areas of their adult lives?
Before this incident, I would have argued for sending my hypothetical future daughter to an all-girls school. So maybe opponents to co-ed schools shouldn’t be told to “have a sook” but given a little time to reflect on their stance, and encouraged to change their perspective.