Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[ScandalAndy]

I came across this article and thought it was fantastic that Sweden is liberal enough to allow this school to exist, and that the children are free to exist in a non-gendered environment. Just curious what you all think about this.

At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.



Full article text here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2011/06/28/2011-06-28_no_gender_allowed_at_preschool_him_and_her_nixe d_to_keep_boys_and_girls_equal.html

[Novelafemme]

I have to agree (somewhat) with the last sentence. While the concept itself is quite lovely, in order for a gender neutral theme to remain consistent it needs to be actively engaged in a child's life for longer than 9 months to a year of kindergarten. If gender classifications were nullified for say grades K-3 the impact could have a much grander and long-lasting effect. I love it, none the less!

[amnesia.bfp]

Where do I live?

I can't remember.

Who am I?

[ScandalAndy]

Where do I live?

I can't remember.

Who am I?

Thanks, that's ten seconds of my life I will never get back.

[Chazz]

I came across this article and thought it was fantastic that Sweden is liberal enough to allow this school to exist, and that the children are free to exist in a non-gendered environment. Just curious what you all think about this.

This is goofy.

The Swedes are confusing sex with gender. (A common mistake these days.)

This is erasure, not correction. There is nothing wrong with the terms "her" or "him". The problem resides in gender constructs.

Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue.

[Novelafemme]

Nixing traditional gender roles, as applicable to small children, is what they are getting at. At least that is how I read it. The language is being adapted to read as "friends" rather than "him/her, etc" so as to accommodate the small people. The theoretical concept of creating a gender neutral space for children to experience life is fascinating to me. The logistics would be a bit tricky, but it looks like they are doing a great job!

[ScandalAndy]

This is goofy.

The Swedes are confusing sex with gender. (A common mistake these days.)

This is erasure, not correction. There is nothing wrong with the terms "her" or "him". The problem resides in gender constructs.

Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue.


I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, so before I disagree with you I wonder if you would be so kind as to clarify that for me a bit? My interpretation was that they were eschewing traditional gender roles by placing toys associated with those roles with each other (among other things, such as gender neutral pronouns and suggesting non-traditional family structures during playtime) so as not to reinforce the separation of behaviors.

[Novelafemme]

"Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue."

Beautiful statement, truly...but try to keep in mind that at this age children are not biased. Biases come a bit later in life after (as you stated) language has been misappropriated and gendered.

[Chazz]

Well, there are differing schools of thought as to "gender roles, as applicable to small children" and adults.

Some argue that gender roles are innate regardless of sex; others that they are largely conditioned. This is largely a political debate as science has not, yet, spoken definitively on the matter. (The Swedes seem to be leaning towards the "conditioned" side of the debate.)

In any event, I'm discussing grammar, not politics.

I'll stick with non-erasure and changing gender constructs over wordplay, albeit, even on a part time basis.

Sex = male and female
Gender = masculine and feminine
Male = he, him
Female = she, her
(RE: The World Health Organization)

[ScandalAndy]

Well, there are differing schools of thought as to "gender roles, as applicable to small children" and adults.

Some argue that gender roles are innate regardless of sex; others that they are largely conditioned. This is largely a political debate as science has not, yet, spoken definitively on the matter. (The Swedes seem to be leaning towards the "conditioned" side of the debate.)

In any event, I'm discussing grammar, not politics.

I'll stick with non-erasure and changing gender constructs over wordplay, albeit, even on a part time basis.

Sex = male and female
Gender = masculine and feminine
Male = he, him
Female = she, her
(RE: The World Health Organization)


Okay, so wouldn't toy placement and encouragement of alternative family structures be considered changing gender constructs? If we're looking at masculine and feminine in terms of behaviors, that is.

[JAGG]

I think by the time they start school they are between ages 4-6. What they have experienced at home is already ingrained. Not to mention the fact they return home daily. I like the idea of not pressuring a child into a gender role so to speak. It gives them more freedom to choose what they truely prefer. But I don't think it will have too much of an impact. I'd be interested to see the outcome. Just my humble opinion.

[Chazz]

"Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue."

Beautiful statement, truly...but try to keep in mind that at this age children are not biased. Biases come a bit later in life after (as you stated) language has been misappropriated and gendered.

Sure kids are "biased" at a young age - as young as 3-5 years old.

My EX's 4 year old called me, "Mr. Chazz", from day one. :)

Although the following excerpt is about race, not gender constructs, it makes the case for how children are, in fact, biased at a very young age.



Children Are Not Colorblind: How Young Children Learn Race

"Toddlers as young as two years use racial categories to reason about people’s behaviors (Hirschfeld, 2008), and numerous studies show that three-to five-year-olds not only categorize people by race, but express bias based on race (Aboud, 2008; Hirschfeld, 2008; Katz, 2003; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). In a yearlong study, Van Ausdale & Feagin (2001) found that three- to five-year-olds in a racially and ethnically diverse day care center used racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their own social/play networks."(Erin N. Winkler, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)


http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/africology/faculty/upload/children_colorblind.pdf

[Novelafemme]

Sure kids are "biased" at a young age - as young as 3-5 years old.

My EX's 4 year old called me, "Mr. Chazz", from day one. :)

Although the following excerpt is about race, not gender constructs, it makes the case for how children are, in fact, biased at a very young age.



Children Are Not Colorblind: How Young Children Learn Race

"Toddlers as young as two years use racial categories to reason about people’s behaviors (Hirschfeld, 2008), and numerous studies show that three-to five-year-olds not only categorize people by race, but express bias based on race (Aboud, 2008; Hirschfeld, 2008; Katz, 2003; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). In a yearlong study, Van Ausdale & Feagin (2001) found that three- to five-year-olds in a racially and ethnically diverse day care center used racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their own social/play networks."(Erin N. Winkler, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)


http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/africology/faculty/upload/children_colorblind.pdf

Correct you are. I was getting pre-school and kindergarten confused in my wee brain. :)

[LaneyDoll]

I think by the time they start school they are between ages 4-6. What they have experienced at home is already ingrained. Not to mention the fact they return home daily. I like the idea of not pressuring a child into a gender role so to speak. It gives them more freedom to choose what they truely prefer. But I don't think it will have too much of an impact. I'd be interested to see the outcome. Just my humble opinion.

I agree 100% with you, especially the part I underlined. Behavior is learned at home, with the first people who teach it. Whether it is intentionally taught or taught from neglect, it is learned and the early ages are the times when the mind is most able to saturate information.

Now, one thing that I am hopeful about-if parents are sending their children to this school, then surely, they are teaching the proper values at home to support the lessons learned at the school.

I would have gladly sent my children to this school had an option like this been available during those years in their lives-or in my area for that matter. I think they all would have fit in wonderfully. But there again, they were taught, at home, to accept and embrace the differences of others.

:sparklyheart:

[Chazz]

Okay, so wouldn't toy placement and encouragement of alternative family structures be considered changing gender constructs? If we're looking at masculine and feminine in terms of behaviors, that is.

Nope.

Moving toys around a room from one set of hands to another isn't change - it's a reconfiguration of the same constructs. The constructs have to change.

If by "alternative family structures" you mean, LGBTQs "making" a nuclear family, no to that, too.

[Chazz]

Correct you are. I was getting pre-school and kindergarten confused in my wee brain. :)

Novelafemme, it never occurred to me to think of you as "wee brained". :flowers:

[Novelafemme]

I agree 100% with you, especially the part I underlined. Behavior is learned at home, with the first people who teach it. Whether it is intentionally taught or taught from neglect, it is learned and the early ages are the times when the mind is most able to saturate information.

Now, one thing that I am hopeful about-if parents are sending their children to this school, then surely, they are teaching the proper values at home to support the lessons learned at the school.

I would have gladly sent my children to this school had an option like this been available during those years in their lives-or in my area for that matter. I think they all would have fit in wonderfully. But there again, they were taught, at home, to accept and embrace the differences of others.

:sparklyheart:

Sweden is extremely progressive. This is the country that allows a massive amount of time for post-partum mothers to remain home from work with their newborns...fathers as well. I believe in some sectors it is as much as 16 months. The gender equity is extremely balanced and fair. Children are valued and parenting (especially during the formative years) is regarded as a blessing - even to the extent of spanking being prohibited by the law. Social democracy prevails and children not only have rights but are advocated for by a highly regarded child welfare system. Nonviolence is practiced both inside the home and in society at large and is modeled by fathers who participate actively in parenting and typically don't model aggressive values. Compared to how individualistic and selfish Americans can be, Sweds demonstrate how working together benefits not only the individual but the populous as a whole...from the children up.

[Chazz]

I think by the time they start school they are between ages 4-6. What they have experienced at home is already ingrained. Not to mention the fact they return home daily. I like the idea of not pressuring a child into a gender role so to speak. It gives them more freedom to choose what they truely prefer. But I don't think it will have too much of an impact. I'd be interested to see the outcome. Just my humble opinion.

Not to mention the playground, TV, and video games. :|

[Novelafemme]

Nope.

Moving toys around a room from one set of hands to another isn't change - it's a reconfiguration of the same constructs. The constructs have to change.

If by "alternative family structures" you mean, LGBTQs "making" a nuclear family, no to that, too.

This gave me a chuckle. In one of my spring classes the professor used the term "social construct" SO much that when it came time for me to give my oral presentation and she asked everyone to gather in a circle around me, I told her I felt the placement of the chairs was a social construct. hehehehe

[Novelafemme]

Not to mention the playground, TV, and video games. :|

What if you removed the TV and video games...

[Chazz]

What if you removed the TV and video games...

....and replaced them with what? Tonka toys and footballs for girls, dolls, crinoline and lace for boys. :|

Shifting around gender specific toys, clothing, play activities, pronouns, etc. doesn't resolve the false duality of gender constructs.

[Chazz]

This gave me a chuckle. In one of my spring classes the professor used the term "social construct" SO much that when it came time for me to give my oral presentation and she asked everyone to gather in a circle around me, I told her I felt the placement of the chairs was a social construct. hehehehe

....coulda been a testament about snoozers and schmoozers.

[Novelafemme]

....and replaced them with what? Tonka toys and footballs for girls, dolls, crinoline and lace for boys. :|

Shifting around gender specific toys, clothing, play activities, pronouns, etc. doesn't resolve the false duality of gender constructs.

Perhaps the focus needs to shift more towards attachment parenting and/or a model reflective of Waldorf philosophies on education/pedagogy.

[Novelafemme]

"false duality of gender constructs"

how is this representative of what this school in Sweden is hoping to achieve? Where is the false duality you speak of in that environment? Certainly not in their language/toy choices...

I'm confused.

[cane]

I have to agree (somewhat) with the last sentence. While the concept itself is quite lovely, in order for a gender neutral theme to remain consistent it needs to be actively engaged in a child's life for longer than 9 months to a year of kindergarten. If gender classifications were nullified for say grades K-3 the impact could have a much grander and long-lasting effect. I love it, none the less!

Some confusion here I think...

You attend Kindergarten, or Pre-school, as it's called in Sweden, from the age of 1 year to the age of 6, not 9 months.

[LaneyDoll]

What if you removed the TV and video games...

Then you would have my house. My kids have TV, video games etc but they rarely use them. Their Wii was the hit of the living room-for less than a month after they got it. Now, they might remember to use once a month, if that. They love to be outside. We were without cable for almost a year and the kids never complained or even mentioned it. I watch TV more than they do, I tend to sink into movies combined with household chores/hobbies when they are away.

We used to have a "family movie night" ritual that I let slide when the school year became so hectic. We would all pile up in the living room, share popcorn and M & Ms and watch either a new family movie or an old fave. In typing that, I decided that I am going to revive that tradition---tonight. Thanks Novelafemme for "reminding" me of something I enjoyed.

:sparklyheart:

[Chazz]

Perhaps the focus needs to shift more towards attachment parenting and/or a model reflective of Waldorf philosophies on education/pedagogy.

Try and get that passed by the Republicans, why doncha. :readfineprint:

There needs to be a cultural/spiritual shift in consciousness. Assuming that ever happens, the rest will follow.

I use to be hopeful, now, not so much.

[Linus]

I have to agree (somewhat) with the last sentence. While the concept itself is quite lovely, in order for a gender neutral theme to remain consistent it needs to be actively engaged in a child's life for longer than 9 months to a year of kindergarten. If gender classifications were nullified for say grades K-3 the impact could have a much grander and long-lasting effect. I love it, none the less!

Some confusion here I think...

You attend Kindergarten, or Pre-school, as it's called in Sweden, from the age of 1 year to the age of 6, not 9 months.


I think Novelafemme said that it's the time in school, not when it's started.

[cane]

This is goofy.

The Swedes are confusing sex with gender. (A common mistake these days.)

This is erasure, not correction. There is nothing wrong with the terms "her" or "him". The problem resides in gender constructs.

Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue.


They acctually never say that there is something wrong with the terms "her or "him", they mean that it's not ok to presume that, for example the plumber, is a man, and therefore they use the term "hen".

Furthermore we call the kids friend or other terms like it because it's not up to us/me to decide what the kids feel like.

I had a kid some time ago asking me if I was a boy or a girl and I asked in return "Does it really matter?" The kid answered "No, you Can be what ever you want."

/Cane, gender pedagogue in Sweden

[Chazz]

"false duality of gender constructs"

how is this representative of what this school in Sweden is hoping to achieve? Where is the false duality you speak of in that environment? Certainly not in their language/toy choices...

I'm confused.

Sweden is trying to chip away at the monolith of gender constructs by altering pronouns. That's like trying to eradicate racism by electing an African-American president.

But to your question....

I could give you the TAOist version: "Don’t confuse the linguistic meta-levels. Deny false dichotomies (binary fascism, dualistic absolutism) by uniting all opposites."

Or, the Omar Khayyam versions: "Peace is the reconciliation of opposites.

Or, I could just say: Gender is something we construct because we are lost to ourselves.

[Novelafemme]

Sweden is trying to chip away at the monolith of gender constructs by altering pronouns. That's like trying to eradicate racism by electing an African-American president.

But to your question....

I could give you the TAOist version: "Don’t confuse the linguistic meta-levels. Deny false dichotomies (binary fascism, dualistic absolutism) by uniting all opposites."

Or, the Omar Khayyam versions: "Peace is the reconciliation of opposites.

Or, I could just say: Gender is something we construct because we are lost to ourselves.

...and so what would be your offering? my feeling is that you have to start somewhere and often that begins with language.

[Chazz]

They acctually never say that there is something wrong with the terms "her or "him", they mean that it's not ok to presume that, for example the plumber, is a man, and therefore they use the term "hen".

No one said they did.

Furthermore we call the kids friend or other terms like it because it's not up to us/me to decide what the kids feel like.

Adults rear kids, children don't rear themselves.

I had a kid some time ago asking me if I was a boy or a girl and I asked in return "Does it really matter?" The kid answered "No, you Can be what ever you want."

Would that it was that simple.

[ScandalAndy]

Nope.

Moving toys around a room from one set of hands to another isn't change - it's a reconfiguration of the same constructs. The constructs have to change.

If by "alternative family structures" you mean, LGBTQs "making" a nuclear family, no to that, too.

I believe you misinterpret my point, here.

In the article the caregivers/teachers at the school encourage family structures with multiple moms/dads to break the assumption that families can only have one mom and one dad.

Construction toys and kitchen toys in the same area, to me, imply that there is not any reason to differentiate between both things as "toys". Are you saying that simply by having these toys the idea that male gender = construction and female gender = kitchen are being reinforced?

[ScandalAndy]

....and replaced them with what? Tonka toys and footballs for girls, dolls, crinoline and lace for boys. :|

Shifting around gender specific toys, clothing, play activities, pronouns, etc. doesn't resolve the false duality of gender constructs.

Please explain false duality of gender constructs. I think we may be getting at the same thing here, but I don't want to assume.

[cane]

Sweden is trying to chip away at the monolith of gender constructs by altering pronouns. That's like trying to eradicate racism by electing an African-American president.

But to your question....

I could give you the TAOist version: "Don’t confuse the linguistic meta-levels. Deny false dichotomies (binary fascism, dualistic absolutism) by uniting all opposites."

Or, the Omar Khayyam versions: "Peace is the reconciliation of opposites.

Or, I could just say: Gender is something we construct because we are lost to ourselves.


You do understand, I hope, that there is an entire curriculum that this is based upon, they didn't just change a couple of words. What's the alternative..? Doing nothing..? Or maybe just write about it...

/Cane, gender pedagogue in Sweden

[tapu]

I've never gotten the worry that some parents express over their girls playing with "girls' toys," or their boys with "boys' toys." (The former being more usual, presumably because women's roles are seen as less valuable."

In my view, toy choice stems naturally from evolutionary development. The primary goal of the organism is to survive and reproduce. Since girls are going to be birthing the babies, they play with... baby dolls!

Meanwhile, guys do that other stuff like protecting the group's survival, supplying food and shelter. Takes a village, and specifically it takes a village of males and females at its barest.

Now that men and women's societal roles are melding more, there may be more of a natural physical departure from those child-gender-purpose-toy associations. Long long time in the future, maybe our bodies even change to accommodate the new physical order. Maybe we're not male/female, but, you know, butch/femme, regardless of gender.


I don't know-- I just tried to say all that while my little boy is trying to interest me in some warlike game here. Which I kind of like, myself, of course. >;-)

[Chazz]

...and so what would be your offering? my feeling is that you have to start somewhere and often that begins with language.

...and so what would be your offering? my feeling is that you have to start somewhere and often that begins with language.

"WE" could throw the false duality of gender-speak (in all its incarnations) out the window. "WE" could stop speaking of ourselves as "masculine" and "feminine". "WE" could stop gendering toys, clothes, hair styles, sex, and swagger....

"We" could ditch all the How Do You Identify? stuff and just be....

[tapu]

I forgot to get to the point. I don't predict much efficacy or value in trying to engineer or accelerate such change, as in the Swedish experiment.

[Chazz]

You do understand, I hope, that there is an entire curriculum that this is based upon, they didn't just change a couple of words. What's the alternative..? Doing nothing..? Or maybe just write about it...

/Cane, gender pedagogue in Sweden

Yes, I realize....

The alternative isn't doing "nothing" - it's doing something entirely different. Metachromatism, not metagenesis.

If I, Chazz, can't articulate the details of how that might look with exacting intricacy, it doesn't mean that it isn't a worthy thing to imagine.

[ScandalAndy]

Just to clear up my position on this entire thing:

I believe that in America we have firmly constructed rigid gender classifications based on post-war nuclear family structure. Men are assumed to be bigger, stronger, breadwinners, take out the trash, lift the heavy things, fix the lawnmower, less concerned about appearance/clothing, encouraged to participate in rough/competitive activities, and anything that falls into this arena is considered masculine, associated with male gendered behavior. Women are assumed to be smaller, weaker, child-rearing caregivers, food preparers, clean the house, more concerned about appearance/clothing, and prefer gentler, softer clothing/activities, anything that falls under that umbrella is considered feminine, associated with female gendered behavior.

I agree that parents should be the forefront of change and should actively seek to discourage classification of things such as "boy's toys" and "girl's games", however, I think this behavior absolutely must be reinforced outside of the home as well. I believe that the only way we can destroy this gendered sorting of human beings is by aggressively obliterating that type of judgment from our society. I think what this school is doing is a first step in that direction, which is why I support it.


ETA: I believe children should learn all behaviors without the stigma of gender, and ESPECIALLY not with the threat of being punished for enjoying activities that do not fit into the box of traits that are supposed to correspond to their biological sex, which, as has been stated previously, is not the same as gender.

[Chancie]

Years ago, before I started spending way too much time here, my ex and I made a concious choice not to use gendered pronouns whenever possible.

There were plenty of times when people went 'Hunh'?

Or we sounded crazy, diving all over ourselves to communicate without using 'she' and 'he' and 'her' and 'him' but

Our conciousness about how we used gendered pronopuns changed me and the way I thought.

I think we used to talk more about biology, gender and sexual orientation here.

The expression 'false duality of gender constructs' means that it is false to talk only about two gender constructs, and imbedded in that belief is the idea that gender is a social construct, as distinct from biology.

[cane]

I forgot to get to the point. I don't predict much efficacy or value in trying to engineer or accelerate such change, as in the Swedish experiment.

It is not an experiment, it's a life choice and a life ambition, a way of living. Not just for these kids then and there, but also for their parents.

[Novelafemme]

See...I don't see this program as an "experiment" per say. I see it as a vast cultural difference between how Americans approach early childhood education versus how Sweden does. No Child Left Behind is a social construct - manufactured by a legislation driven by capitalistic neoliberals. (holy crap!)

And here is where my socialist undies get in a bunch. Sweden isn't out to propagate any sort of agenda. Rather, they are investing in their future by restructuring the social order of things. I think this is a marvelous step towards neutralizing the dominant gender binary that has suffocated America for eons.

[Novelafemme]

Just to clear up my position on this entire thing:

I believe that in America we have firmly constructed rigid gender classifications based on post-war nuclear family structure. Men are assumed to be bigger, stronger, breadwinners, take out the trash, lift the heavy things, fix the lawnmower, less concerned about appearance/clothing, encouraged to participate in rough/competitive activities, and anything that falls into this arena is considered masculine, associated with male gendered behavior. Women are assumed to be smaller, weaker, child-rearing caregivers, food preparers, clean the house, more concerned about appearance/clothing, and prefer gentler, softer clothing/activities, anything that falls under that umbrella is considered feminine, associated with female gendered behavior.

I agree that parents should be the forefront of change and should actively seek to discourage classification of things such as "boy's toys" and "girl's games", however, I think this behavior absolutely must be reinforced outside of the home as well. I believe that the only way we can destroy this gendered sorting of human beings is by aggressively obliterating that type of judgment from our society. I think what this school is doing is a first step in that direction, which is why I support it.

...were we separated at birth?? :rrose:

[Chancie]

Though there was support from both Democrats and Rupublicans, NCLB was passed during the Bush Adminstration in 2001.

[tapu]

I have not seen one pre-school--now, granted I've only spent time in maybe 8-10 (and only on the coasts so yes, more progressive)--that delineates the sexes, the play, the toys in classroom set-up or on-going direction.

Of course, there are promoting or limiting gender-directed behaviors that the caregivers have and that could be modified through outside observation and feedback. Overall, it has seemed to me that there is a natural division in interest that the kids display, along gender lines.

But... what exactly IS the problem when little girls choose the dolls and such and little boys choose the trains and such?

I live in a very progressive city (Portland, ME), and I think it's fairly well entrenched here that if "Biff" wants to wear a tutu to the museum play, he gets to. (real-life example) If "Nell" is into her trucks, no one worries a thing about it.

What is happening in progressive classrooms like that that is undesirable or unnatural that could be done better? What change being engineered is desired, exactly?

[Chazz]

I forgot to get to the point. I don't predict much efficacy or value in trying to engineer or accelerate such change, as in the Swedish experiment.

I don't seem much value in this experiment, either.

Now that men and women's societal roles are melding more, there may be more of a natural physical departure from those child-gender-purpose-toy associations. Long long time in the future, maybe our bodies even change to accommodate the new physical order. Maybe we're not male/female, but, you know, butch/femme, regardless of gender.

I suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.


I don't know-- I just tried to say all that while my little boy is trying to interest me in some warlike game here. Which I kind of like, myself, of course. >;-)

"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.

[cane]

Yes, I realize....

The alternative isn't doing "nothing" - it's doing something entirely different. Metachromatism, not metagenesis.

If I, Chazz, can't articulate the details of how that might look with exacting intricacy, it doesn't mean that it isn't a worthy thing to imagine.

To quote myself "or maybe just write about it..." or "imagine" -to quote you.

So something you can't even articulate you want implimented in a pre-schools curriculum? Yes, imagine...

[ScandalAndy]

"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.

That, of course, is another topic altogether that causes me to get incredibly worked up, and would be a fantastic discussion for another thread, if you feel so inclined. I think you have a lot of good thoughts about these things and that would be a good conversation.

I also have a copy of a U.S. government report from the 1930s that says gay men make better soldiers. Clearly, that one wasn't widely circulated.

[Chazz]

To quote myself "or maybe just write about it..." or "imagine" -to quote you.

So something you can't even articulate you want implimented in a pre-schools curriculum? Yes, imagine...

LOL, yeah, that's it.

[tapu]

It is not an experiment, it's a life choice and a life ambition, a way of living. Not just for these kids then and there, but also for their parents.


I'll have to reread. I did not get that this was a long-established model, extending out to more levels of society. I thought it was a new program that was nowhere as developed as you describe it.

[tapu]

I suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.

I'm not sure how that relates to what you were quoting so I don't know how to respond. Can you connect it for me?




"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.


I don't think war-like games are the problem either. But to acknowledge the historical infelicities and get back into now, we can start making female toy soldiers.

There. Nice, practical, sensible move that can be implemented now. Not what we imagine... or what we want but can't articulate... or what we implement in children's education without clearly defined and concrete details, and without defining our assumptions.

[Chazz]

I have not seen one pre-school--now, granted I've only spent time in maybe 8-10 (and only on the coasts so yes, more progressive)--that delineates the sexes, the play, the toys in classroom set-up or on-going direction.

The class rooms in public schools are fairly PC these days. It's what goes on in the school yard....

Of course, there are promoting or limiting gender-directed behaviors that the caregivers have and that could be modified through outside observation and feedback. Overall, it has seemed to me that there is a natural division in interest that the kids display, along gender lines.

Yes.... There is a division of interest along sex lines - not gender lines. (I'm a gender deconstructionist.)

You and I may be lucky that our kids fit sex-based, gender expectations. Not all parents and kids are so lucky....

But... what exactly IS the problem when little girls choose the dolls and such and little boys choose the trains and such?

The problem is that the options are artificially limited whether a child opts to exercise them or not.

I live in a very progressive city (Portland, ME), and I think it's fairly well entrenched here that if "Biff" wants to wear a tutu to the museum play, he gets to. (real-life example) If "Nell" is into her trucks, no one worries a thing about it.

You're regionally blessed.

What is happening in progressive classrooms like that that is undesirable or unnatural that could be done better? What change being engineered is desired, exactly?

As ScandalAndy suggested, that's a whole other thread.

[Heart]

It's not the toys or the pronouns, it's the value placed upon them... It's not whether a little girl/boy plays with dolls/trucks, it's whether playing with a doll is as valuable and meaningful as playing with a truck, it's whether wearing glitter is as important as wearing a sherrif's badge. It's not war-games OR playing house, it's both (and neither for those who want to draw). It's not male or female essentialism or constructionism, it's whether feminine/masculine and every permutation/blend of these energies/performances are equally valued and necessary to society.

And I don't really have an opinion about the school in Sweden, as long as the kids are safe, happy, have healthy snacks and take naps.

Heart

ETA: When a little boy plays with dolls and wears a tutu it causes more angst then when a little girl plays with trucks or wears a tie, because "girl things" are less valued, have less status and currency, than "boy things." That's why sissies are more closely policed than tomboys. So I guess my question is: does the Swedish school experiment have an impact on the valuing of gender tropes?

[cane]

I'll have to reread. I did not get that this was a long-established model, extending out to more levels of society. I thought it was a new program that was nowhere as developed as you describe it.

Didn't say long established, that was your word, and also I didn't describe it.
But yes, definitely extending to more levels, if not of society so of these peoples lives.

And with this being paid for by the government and supported by the national curriculum for schools and pre-school... Our government doesn't pay for experiments.

[Chazz]

I'm not sure how that relates to what you were quoting so I don't know how to respond. Can you connect it for me?

I think you may be thinking in terms of micro changes while I'm referring to macro change. As in a cultural metanoia (def. A fundamental change in beliefs; a transformative change of heart; a conversion).

Western culture consumes incremental progress and commodifies it, thereby taking the soul out of it, leaving things pretty much as they were before. (This is a whole other thread, too.) Heathcare was a progressive break through until the insurance companies turned it into a profit making enterprise that favored some while excluding far too many. "Progress" is not always progress for all.

I don't think war-like games are the problem either. But to acknowledge the historical infelicities and get back into now, we can start making female toy soldiers.

There. Nice, practical, sensible move that can be implemented now. Not what we imagine... or what we want but can't articulate... or what we implement in children's education without clearly defined and concrete details, and without defining our assumptions.

EUREKA ! ! ! ....Female toy soldiers, at last, a solution. :praying:

I mean no insult, but it's going to take hella more than female toy soldiers.

[InsatiableHeart]

I am quite new to this site and maybe my opinion will not mean anything at all but, with that being said, I teach 2nd grade and I have to say that I would not agree with having a gender neutral classroom. I think that we as a society are putting too much emphasis on being *politically correct* in our wording and actions and have forgotten how to just live and enjoy life. Children, by nature, just as adults, are curious and I think it causes many more issues than solves. Of course this is just my opinion.

[Chazz]

I am quite new to this site and maybe my opinion will not mean anything at all but, with that being said, I teach 2nd grade and I have to say that I would not agree with having a gender neutral classroom. I think that we as a society are putting too much emphasis on being *politically correct* in our wording and actions and have forgotten how to just live and enjoy life. Children, by nature, just as adults, are curious and I think it causes many more issues than solves. Of course this is just my opinion.

Well said.... It's not about having a gender neutral classroom - it's about having a multi-gendered classroom that nurtures all gender expression.

[Novelafemme]

I am quite new to this site and maybe my opinion will not mean anything at all but, with that being said, I teach 2nd grade and I have to say that I would not agree with having a gender neutral classroom. I think that we as a society are putting too much emphasis on being *politically correct* in our wording and actions and have forgotten how to just live and enjoy life. Children, by nature, just as adults, are curious and I think it causes many more issues than solves. Of course this is just my opinion.

Welcome to the site, InsatiableHeart!

[InsatiableHeart]

Well said.... It's not about having a gender neutral classroom - it's about having a multi-gendered classroom that nurtures all gender expression.



Thank you and that is exactly my point.

[InsatiableHeart]

Welcome to the site, InsatiableHeart!


:eyebat: Thank you! I am finding it to be quite interesting so far.

[ScandalAndy]

Thank you and that is exactly my point.

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...

[Novelafemme]

Now I want to have another baby just to raise it in a gender neutral environment. I would name it "Elephant". Too bad I don't have a uterus anymore. :seeingstars:

[InsatiableHeart]

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...



As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

[Toughy]

I believe that in America we have firmly constructed rigid gender classifications based on post-war nuclear family structure. Men are assumed to be bigger, stronger, breadwinners, take out the trash, lift the heavy things, fix the lawnmower, less concerned about appearance/clothing, encouraged to participate in rough/competitive activities, and anything that falls into this arena is considered masculine, associated with male gendered behavior. Women are assumed to be smaller, weaker, child-rearing caregivers, food preparers, clean the house, more concerned about appearance/clothing, and prefer gentler, softer clothing/activities, anything that falls under that umbrella is considered feminine, associated with female gendered behavior.


I would suggest that this model never did exist in post war America except on TV (think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver). ALL the women (old enough) I knew as a kid worked during WWII. Where do you think Rosie the Riveter came from? During the war women did every job that men did before the war. It was the patriotic thing to do. The war effort was vital. Women earned a paycheck and took care of the house and kids. After the war many were not going to back to the housewife only. This time frame was the beginning of the civil rights movement for both women and blacks. 'Women's lib' started in this time. The GI Bill happened and men coming home from the war went to college, not work, paid for by the government. That is how my Dad got his education. My parents bought their first house by way of the GI Bill. My mother worked on occasion and her mother always worked.

Any way.......this so called 'american dream' with a stay at home Mom, a working Dad and 2.5 children during the 50's was not the reality in most of the country. TV is where that dream came from.

[ScandalAndy]

As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

A is for Apple, B is for Boy... a gendered term is right in the beginning of the ABCs, but that is not the point I'm trying to prove, it just happened to pop into my head.



When you address your class, do you say "alright boys and girls, it's time for snack"? Are boy's cubbies and coathooks delineated by nametags with trucks and frogs on them, while the girls' tags have butterflies and flowers? Do any of your students have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"? I think gender and its associated roles are present in your classroom whether you know it or not. You are a teacher, and what you teach is very important to youngsters (i commend you for being a teacher, it is a difficult and absolutely necessary job). I remember my 2nd grade teacher, Mrs. Love, she taught our class about diabetes because we were curious about why she needed to use that plastic box on her finger every day. Treating it as something normal that she did was enough to de-mystify it for us, help us accept it, and educate us about something that we could have viewed as scary (blood = scary for some people). Along those lines, I absolutely think teachers should validate all genders while teaching genderless concepts such as mathematics and language.

As a side note, all language (with the exception of english) is gendered. Crazy!

You are right, it doesn't matter what gender anyone is, but that's a concept that needs to be taught.

[AtLast]

It's not the toys or the pronouns, it's the value placed upon them... It's not whether a little girl/boy plays with dolls/trucks, it's whether playing with a doll is as valuable and meaningful as playing with a truck, it's whether wearing glitter is as important as wearing a sherrif's badge. It's not war-games OR playing house, it's both (and neither for those who want to draw). It's not male or female essentialism or constructionism, it's whether feminine/masculine and every permutation/blend of these energies/performances are equally valued and necessary to society.

And I don't really have an opinion about the school in Sweden, as long as the kids are safe, happy, have healthy snacks and take naps.

Heart

ETA: When a little boy plays with dolls and wears a tutu it causes more angst then when a little girl plays with trucks or wears a tie, because "girl things" are less valued, have less status and currency, than "boy things." That's why sissies are more closely policed than tomboys. So I guess my question is: does the Swedish school experiment have an impact on the valuing of gender tropes?

As being someone that has seen more than a few of these types of "gender neutral" experimentations over a span of 40 years, I can't agree more with you. It is not about gender, it is about what is valued and de-valued within a society.

Thankfully, I was gieven Tonka Trucks and baby dolls as a kid not based on anything other than the fact that I liked both. My choices were accepted and validated based upon what I enjoyed, not my gender or any fear of my not "playing right" according to my being female. Now, this all changed outside of my home as I grew up.

The valuing of male gender tropes outside of my home began my experience of learning that anything female was not as good as male. The focus on gender neutrality in terms of child's play is not the issue at all. To think that these kids will somehow miss gender discrimination and de-valuation in the future is wrong until or unless male and female (and all variations) become equal as social currency.

[Heart]

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...

That's interesting... what exactly is "gender-neutral," how is it achieved, maintained? Does it validate multiple gender experiences while reducing stereotypes or does it erase/minimize/police gender? Is it liberating or stifling?

[ScandalAndy]

I would suggest that this model never did exist in post war America except on TV (think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver). ALL the women (old enough) I knew as a kid worked during WWII. Where do you think Rosie the Riveter came from? During the war women did every job that men did before the war. It was the patriotic thing to do. The war effort was vital. Women earned a paycheck and took care of the house and kids. After the war many were not going to back to the housewife only. This time frame was the beginning of the civil rights movement for both women and blacks. 'Women's lib' started in this time. The GI Bill happened and men coming home from the war went to college, not work, paid for by the government. That is how my Dad got his education. My parents bought their first house by way of the GI Bill. My mother worked on occasion and her mother always worked.

Any way.......this so called 'american dream' with a stay at home Mom, a working Dad and 2.5 children during the 50's was not the reality in most of the country. TV is where that dream came from.


I agree with you to some extent, my nana was a riveter working in a factory making planes before she was married. After she was married she was a stay at home mom and my grandfather was the sole breadwinner in the house. My mother went to catholic school and was raised to be a good housewife. Her interest in circuitboards and science was discouraged. I feel that you raise a valid point about the TV dream of the white picket fence, but I also think many people aspired to achieve that. My family also has the intersectionality of being first generation Americans, coupled with rural geographic location and strong religious influence. I'm not sure how much of a role that played in all of this, but I'm sure it shouldn't be discounted outright.

it might be worthwhile to examine the trend of women enrolling in college, which skyrocketed in the 1920s and early 30s, only to plummet during the depression and never really regain momentum. There's a really interesting book that examines women and high education, feel free to check it out: http://www.amazon.com/College-Girls-Bluestockings-Kittens-Co-eds/dp/0393327159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309296302&sr=8-1

[ScandalAndy]

As being someone that has seen more than a few of these types of "gender neutral" experimentations over a span of 40 years, I can't agree more with you. It is not about gender, it is about what is valued and de-valued within a society.

Thankfully, I was gieven Tonka Trucks and baby dolls as a kid not based on anything other than the fact that I liked both. My choices were accepted and validated based upon what I enjoyed, not my gender or any fear of my not "playing right" according to my being female. Now, this all changed outside of my home as I grew up.

The valuing of male gender tropes outside of my home began my experience of learning that anything female was not as good as male. The focus on gender neutrality in terms of child's play is not the issue at all. To think that these kids will somehow miss gender discrimination and de-valuation in the future is wrong until or unless male and female (and all variations) become equal as social currency.



I might go so far as to say this isn't really about insulating children from gender discrimination or devaluation, so much as raising them so that they can objectively recognize and value these things on their own terms.

[Chancie]

As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

A is for Apple, B is for Boy... a gendered term is right in the beginning of the ABCs, but that is not the point I'm trying to prove, it just happened to pop into my head.

When you address your class, do you say "alright boys and girls, it's time for snack"? Are boy's cubbies and coathooks delineated by nametags with trucks and frogs on them, while the girls' tags have butterflies and flowers? Do any of your students have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"? I think gender and its associated roles are present in your classroom whether you know it or not. You are a teacher, and what you teach is very important to youngsters (i commend you for being a teacher, it is a difficult and absolutely necessary job). I remember my 2nd grade teacher, Mrs. Love, she taught our class about diabetes because we were curious about why she needed to use that plastic box on her finger every day. Treating it as something normal that she did was enough to de-mystify it for us, help us accept it, and educate us about something that we could have viewed as scary (blood = scary for some people). Along those lines, I absolutely think teachers should validate all genders while teaching genderless concepts such as mathematics and language.

As a side note, all language (with the exception of english) is gendered. Crazy!

You are right, it doesn't matter what gender anyone is, but that's a concept that needs to be taught.

I teach math in a public high school, and of course I don't teach in a vacuum.

My students are people first, with life experiences and a culural context, and then learners of math and robotics.

There is no pretending that they don't walk into my classroom, in the school where my classroom is located, in the town where the school is located, etc, without a strong sense of race, class, and gender.

[Novelafemme]

That's interesting... what exactly is "gender-neutral," how is it achieved, maintained? Does it validate multiple gender experiences while reducing stereotypes or does it erase/minimize/police gender? Is it liberating or stifling?

Remember that we are discussing a kindergarten classroom here...not a college sociology experiment. In my opinion these children's experiences are validated 150% simply by allowing them the freedom to create their own identities and "roles" within the safety of their classroom. By negating gender oriented language/toys/stereotypical representations of boys and girls, the children are afforded the opportunity to create...to actively engage in an etherial realm uninhibited by societal constraints that have been punctuated by the male-female dichotomy. Play, in all its magnificent forms, allows the child to cultivate a healthy curiosity that in turn (over time - via life experiences) metamorphosizes into an ideology.

[tapu]

tap: What is happening in progressive classrooms like that that is undesirable or unnatural that could be done better? What change being engineered is desired, exactly?

As ScandalAndy suggested, that's a whole other thread.

Really now? I would say that it's the fundamental question to be answered in the context of this thread. It's stepping back and questioning your assumptions.

[tapu]

Didn't say long established, that was your word, and also I didn't describe it.
But yes, definitely extending to more levels, if not of society so of these peoples lives.

And with this being paid for by the government and supported by the national curriculum for schools and pre-school... Our government doesn't pay for experiments.

Either it's new and thus an experiment; or, it's established enough to support your claims about its value to more levels. Sounds like it's still experimental to me (1 year) and so who knows what its relationship will be to anything else.

[tapu]

EUREKA ! ! ! ....Female toy soldiers, at last, a solution. :praying:

I mean no insult, but it's going to take hella more than female toy soldiers.


I'm only insulted if you sincerely thought that I meant female toy soldiers were the full solution. I'll gladly receive your remarks as condescension. >:-)

But, at what point can we march the female toy soldiers in? You speak in ideals. Wonderful. Give me something concrete that backs up your flowery language. What would you DO?

[tapu]

Just to throw a real zinger into it:

I'm one of the people who creates the instructional design for our nation's--our children's--textbooks. Plus then write and edit, too. Suggest design, and approve. Gosh, maybe that's why I'm tied to the concrete. >:-)

Recently, I had a really terrible job as managing editor for a company that publishes high-stakes assessment--precisely the tests that calibrate for NCLB. (Or, No Child Left Unturned, as I affectionately call it. Retch.)

The stories I could tell. Wow.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this very much and am pleased to have those in Sweden here to discuss this, and everyone else, of course.

tap

[AtLast]

Just to throw a real zinger into it:

I'm one of the people who creates the instructional design for our nation's--our children's--textbooks. Plus then write and edit, too. Suggest design, and approve. Gosh, maybe that's why I'm tied to the concrete. >:-)

Recently, I had a really terrible job as managing editor for a company that publishes high-stakes assessment--precisely the tests that calibrate for NCLB. (Or, No Child Left Unturned, as I affectionately call it. Retch.)

The stories I could tell. Wow.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this very much and am pleased to have those in Sweden here to discuss this, and everyone else, of course.

tap

I would love to hear the stories and perspectives you have been privy to in your profession. Many years ago, I developed curriculum and the politics surrounding me were amazing and more often than not, alarming as applied to what, how and why is adopted by public school boards.

[tapu]

I would love to hear the stories and perspectives you have been privy to in your profession. Many years ago, I developed curriculum and the politics surrounding me were amazing and more often than not, alarming as applied to what, how and why is adopted by public school boards.


What is was like in those respects many years ago, has continued on in the same direction.

There's a book about the politics of American education, called The Language Police. It's about 10 years old. It's a little repetitive but at the same time, it is a great way to get a kick in the head about what really goes on politically w.r.t. what our children read (in any subject).


I think it probably counts as "a whole 'nother thread." >:-)

[ScandalAndy]

Remember that we are discussing a kindergarten classroom here...not a college sociology experiment. In my opinion these children's experiences are validated 150% simply by allowing them the freedom to create their own identities and "roles" within the safety of their classroom. By negating gender oriented language/toys/stereotypical representations of boys and girls, the children are afforded the opportunity to create...to actively engage in an etherial realm uninhibited by societal constraints that have been punctuated by the male-female dichotomy. Play, in all its magnificent forms, allows the child to cultivate a healthy curiosity that in turn (over time - via life experiences) metamorphosizes into an ideology.

Definitely separated at birth! :bunchflowers:

[tapu]

I found it was very helpful to me, working in textbook publishing, to get near an actual child upon occasion.

[InsatiableHeart]

A is for Apple, B is for Boy... a gendered term is right in the beginning of the ABCs, but that is not the point I'm trying to prove, it just happened to pop into my head.



When you address your class, do you say "alright boys and girls, it's time for snack"? Are boy's cubbies and coathooks delineated by nametags with trucks and frogs on them, while the girls' tags have butterflies and flowers? Do any of your students have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"? I think gender and its associated roles are present in your classroom whether you know it or not. You are a teacher, and what you teach is very important to youngsters (i commend you for being a teacher, it is a difficult and absolutely necessary job). I remember my 2nd grade teacher, Mrs. Love, she taught our class about diabetes because we were curious about why she needed to use that plastic box on her finger every day. Treating it as something normal that she did was enough to de-mystify it for us, help us accept it, and educate us about something that we could have viewed as scary (blood = scary for some people). Along those lines, I absolutely think teachers should validate all genders while teaching genderless concepts such as mathematics and language.

As a side note, all language (with the exception of english) is gendered. Crazy!

You are right, it doesn't matter what gender anyone is, but that's a concept that needs to be taught.



Actually I address my class as students or children. I have never been one to point out the differences and not for any politically correct or incorrect reason but, just because that is what they are. I teach at a private school and no there are not little trucks or butterflies at the coat hooks. They do although have their names above them, so they can locate them by name. I am not saying that every teacher is like I am, of course they are not but, I do feel that parents are relying too much on teachers to educate their children basic manners but, that is getting into another discussion lol.

[kannon]

Now, one thing that I am hopeful about-if parents are sending their children to this school, then surely, they are teaching the proper values at home to support the lessons learned at the school.



:sparklyheart:

Thank you for expressing this. My sentiments exactly.

[iamkeri1]

I think the gender neutral school is a great idea.
Smooches,
Keri

[tapu]

I think the gender neutral school is a great idea.
Smooches,
Keri

Great, what is it? I mean, when it's not just an idea. (This isn't just to Keri.)

What does this kindergarten look like?

[Ebon]

I think the gender neutral school is a great idea.
Smooches,
Keri

I agree I think it is as well.

[ScandalAndy]

Great, what is it? I mean, when it's not just an idea. (This isn't just to Keri.)

What does this kindergarten look like?

That's a valid question. Hopefully they publish more photos of it, or perhaps a report in an education journal or something. I'd enjoy reading that.

[kannon]

the definition for
Neutral - not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy.

gender neutral sounds pretty good to me.

[Chazz]

Really now? I would say that it's the fundamental question to be answered in the context of this thread. It's stepping back and questioning your assumptions.

Nah.... I'll leave that to you.

I'm too busy questioning the wisdom of this gender neutral business.

In the spirit of gender and cultural neutrality, perhaps the school officials could have the kids wear their hair like this ----> :rainbowAfro:

[ScandalAndy]

Nah.... I'll leave that to you.

I'm too busy questioning the wisdom of this gender neutral business.

In the spirit of gender and cultural neutrality, perhaps the school officials could have the kids wear their hair like this ----> :rainbowAfro:


I'm sorry that you think this topic is so goofy that you choose to invalidate it by making a mockery of it. :(

[Chazz]

I'm only insulted if you sincerely thought that I meant female toy soldiers were the full solution. I'll gladly receive your remarks as condescension. >:-)

But, at what point can we march the female toy soldiers in? You speak in ideals. Wonderful. Give me something concrete that backs up your flowery language. What would you DO?

Tapu really, and in keeping with the theme, that sounds like a homework assignment. I'll pass on the directive.... :)

[Chazz]

I'm sorry that you think this topic is so goofy that you choose to invalidate it by making a mockery of it.

I'm sorry you see it as a mockery. But, to be precise, I said the idea of gender neutral classrooms is goofy.

I don't want to live in a gender neutral world. I just want there to be a multiplicity of gender expression that isn't hierarchical, sexist, or falsely dualistic.

I think we've pretty much exhausted our exchange at this point.

[ScandalAndy]

I'm sorry you see it as a mockery. But, to be precise, I said the idea of gender neutral classrooms is goofy.

I don't want to live in a gender neutral world. I just want there to be a multiplicity of gender expression that isn't hierarchical, sexist, or falsely dualistic.

I think we've pretty much exhausted our exchange at this point.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but thank you for sharing your outlook and opinions. It's good to have that perspective.

[Chazz]

That's interesting... what exactly is "gender-neutral," how is it achieved, maintained? Does it validate multiple gender experiences while reducing stereotypes or does it erase/minimize/police gender? Is it liberating or stifling?

Exactly....

Your post conjures memories of my days as a Catholic School student. It was stifling as a female and as a butchling. Talk about being erased, minimized and gender policed. YIKES ! ! ! !

I remember perceiving the nuns as sexless and genderless (they wore habits at the time). The experience left me with a sense of barrenness and sterility that is vivid, even now.

[tapu]

Tapu really, and in keeping with the theme, that sounds like a homework assignment. I'll pass on the directive.... :)

So... nothing. It gets a lot harder when you're talking about real things instead of nebulous constructs like ideas. I don't think of the practical application and implementation as the homework, exactly. More the groundwork. That's how the higher level idea is informed, refined, and possibly achieved.

Otherwise, it's like politics. Many, many ways to sound great while saying nothing.

[tapu]

Exactly....

Your post conjures memories of my days as a Catholic School student. It was stifling as a female and as a butchling. Talk about being erased, minimized and gender policed. YIKES ! ! ! !

I remember perceiving the nuns as sexless and genderless (they wore habits at the time). The experience left me with a sense of barrenness and sterility that is vivid, even now.


Sounds like you're bailing on us! >:-(

[Chazz]

So... nothing. It gets a lot harder when you're talking about real things instead of nebulous constructs like ideas. I don't think of the practical application and implementation as the homework, exactly. More the groundwork. That's how the higher level idea is informed, refined, and possibly achieved.

Otherwise, it's like politics. Many, many ways to sound great while saying nothing.

But, I've perfected the art of "sounding great" while "saying nothing". I'm not about to give that up now over gender neutral classrooms. A new pork pie hat, maybe, but gender neutrality, never. :detective: (Even though s/he looks a little gender neutral, but never mind about that, use your imagination.)

[Chazz]

Sounds like you're bailing on us! >:-(

I never bail, I wait.

[cane]

Either it's new and thus an experiment; or, it's established enough to support your claims about its value to more levels. Sounds like it's still experimental to me (1 year) and so who knows what its relationship will be to anything else.

Our national curriculum support its value, and that is established and not experimental. and furthermore, we have more pre-schools like that one. The idea as a whole isn't a new one in Sweden.

[JustJo]

I suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.


Just reading this thread, and not sure exactly what I think yet...but this sentence stuck in my head.

When my son was in elementary school, we attended a school carnival...complete with games, bouncie houses and a gigantic inflatable slide about 2 stories tall.

There were hundreds of kids and their parents, all roaming around the play fields, eating, drinking, talking, playing.

Suddenly, there was the sound of many children all screaming.

Evidently, the inflatable slide was poorly designed...with a stairway going up only one side. The people managing the slide had evidently not staked it down properly, and had also allowed children to fill the stairway rather than go up a few at a time.

I, and a few hundred parents, looked up to see the 2 story slide rolling over slowly...with the children ready to be pinned underneath.

Without an alarm, a sound, or anyone organizing anything...we all simply reacted...limbic brain...no training...just instinct.

About 10% of the adults froze in place. The other 90% dropped whatever was in their hands - food, drinks, purses - and ran towards the tipping slide.

Without exception, every male bodied person ran to the slide, braced themselves, lifted their arms and held the slide up off the children.

Without exception, every female bodied person ran underneath the mens' arms, and started grabbing children, pulling them away from the slide, setting them down just past the mens' legs and saying "Run!"

By the time the children were all safe, and the slide started to roll back into an upright position, there was a fair amount of laughter....when we all realized that every woman had planted her ass against the crotch of the man behind her to brace herself in a crouch....the only way to reach the kids.

I'm an independent, tough woman who has always supported herself...and I always felt like gender roles were taught. But ever since that day....I've wondered.

[Ebon]

Just reading this thread, and not sure exactly what I think yet...but this sentence stuck in my head.

When my son was in elementary school, we attended a school carnival...complete with games, bouncie houses and a gigantic inflatable slide about 2 stories tall.

There were hundreds of kids and their parents, all roaming around the play fields, eating, drinking, talking, playing.

Suddenly, there was the sound of many children all screaming.

Evidently, the inflatable slide was poorly designed...with a stairway going up only one side. The people managing the slide had evidently not staked it down properly, and had also allowed children to fill the stairway rather than go up a few at a time.

I, and a few hundred parents, all looked up at the same time...to see the 2 story slide rolling over slowly...with the children ready to be pinned underneath.

Without an alarm, a sound, or anyone organizing anything...we all simply reacted...limbic brain...no training...just instinct.

About 10% of the adults froze in place. The other 90% dropped whatever was in their hands - food, drinks, purses - and ran towards the tipping slide.

Without exception, every male bodied person ran to the slide, braced themselves, lifted their arms and held the slide up off the children.

Without exception, every female bodied person ran underneath the mens' arms, and started grabbing children, pulling them away from the slide, setting them down just past the mens' legs and saying "Run!"

By the time the children were all safe, and the slide started to roll back into an upright position, there was a fair amount of laughter....when we all realized that every woman had planted her ass against the crotch of the man behind her to brace herself in a crouch....the only way to reach the kids.

I'm an independent, tough woman who has always supported herself...and I always felt like gender roles were taught. But ever since that day....I've wondered.

That is a good point and I still think that gender roles are taught. It is programmed deep inside of our subconscious. I am very interested in seeing what these kids are like a few years down the road without or with a limited amount of this sort of programming.

[tapu]

Our national curriculum support its value, and that is established and not experimental. and furthermore, we have more pre-schools like that one. The idea as a whole isn't a new one in Sweden.


I was going by this extract from the OP:
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

We may be talking at cross-purposes. Pity that a news note such as the one in the OP would not include remarks on the deeper research you assert is behind the new pre-schools. (Did all of the preschools like that one just open last year?) So that I may better understand your perspective, can you recommend, link, synopsize even, any 1) applicable curriculum research that might bring me up to date; and, if it isn't any trouble, 2) a description, explanation, any details really about what all these pre-schools look like and sound like. There might be anecdotes or even data available about how things are proceeding there.

[Heart]

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destrctive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart

[ScandalAndy]

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destrctive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart



I agree with what you are saying, for the most part. I feel I need to stand by my opinion that gender neutrality doesn't discourage gender exploration and, in fact, encourages it. I believe it allows an individual the freedom to examine all aspects of gender and make the personal decision about how they choose to present themselves. Re-examination of oneself over time may or may not lead to different presentations, all of which should be acceptable.

I think we are trying to say the same thing with different terms. personally, I don't support "equality" as, to me, that denotes preclassification in groups which are then judged to be equal to one another.

[tapu]

Now I want to have another baby just to raise it in a gender neutral environment. I would name it "Elephant". Too bad I don't have a uterus anymore. :seeingstars:


"Elephant"'s nice....

[cane]

Tapu,

Sorry to say, that yes, the article is not correct, and the author must not know very much about Sweden. Everything in writing is not true, it seems like, sorry to be disapointing you.

Would be interresting to have a discussion about the issue, I acctually spent my lunch break searching for material for the thread. I just don't understand why you would write in such a demining way, or why you feel all this irony is needed.

/Cane

[tapu]

Oh, Cane, I'm sorry--I don't want to be demeaning! I'm sorry that I haven't taken more care in self-monitoring. I admit that irony is a feature of my argumentation style, but even it need not degenerate into personal affront.

Earlier in this thread, I called someone on their condescension toward me, and now I appreciate you calling me on my own breach of manners. Most of my rhetorical training was developed in the field of Linguistics. We linguists can be real assholes sometimes! >;-)

It has frustrated me that much discussion is about how great an idea it is to have a gender-neutral classroom; yet, I can't get out of anyone in real terms what it is, what its goal is, what the projections are, why it's desirable, and so on. I appreciate that you are making efforts toward supplementing the meager information on the OP so that a real discussion can ensue.

Again, I acknowledge the lack of respect in my earlier posting and apologize unconditionally.

[ScandalAndy]

Oh, Cane, I'm sorry--I don't want to be demeaning! I'm sorry that I haven't taken more care in self-monitoring. I admit that irony is a feature of my argumentation style, but even it need not degenerate into personal affront.

Earlier in this thread, I called someone on their condescension toward me, and now I appreciate you calling me on my own breach of manners. Most of my rhetorical training was developed in the field of Linguistics. We linguists can be real assholes sometimes! >;-)

It has frustrated me that much discussion is about how great an idea it is to have a gender-neutral classroom; yet, I can't get out of anyone in real terms what it is, what its goal is, what the projections are, why it's desirable, and so on. I appreciate that you are making efforts toward supplementing the meager information on the OP so that a real discussion can ensue.

Again, I acknowledge the lack of respect in my earlier posting and apologize unconditionally.


I have to admit, I read the description and imagined it, and I have to state that I am pleased with my idea of what it is. You're right, I don't know exactly what it is like in reality.

[tapu]

Andy, at this point, even an imagined vision of it would help me. What do you think about it? Any part.

Oh! And I will mind my manners. Swear. >:-) --tap

[AtLast]

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destrctive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart

This has been the major flaw in the many "experiments" like this through the years. Yes, reinscribe, not neutralize and equality.

Although I have had many times in life in which my gender presentation as female has met with negative consequences, I have always internally enjoyed and even felt much flexibility concerning my gender presentation.

[Novelafemme]

This has been the major flaw in the many "experiments" like this through the years. Yes, reinscribe, not neutralize and equality.

Although I have had many times in life in which my gender presentation as female has met with negative consequences, I have always internally enjoyed and even felt much flexibility concerning my gender presentation.

I feel very similarly, ALH! Thank you for sharing this. :)

[Chazz]

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destructive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart

You're so smart and concise, Heart ! :bowdown:

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.

[tapu]

I read an article on eliminating "gender-biased language and behavior" in the classroom. I'm thinking it may fall into a subset of modifications to "old" classroom practices that are possibly summed up in these lines from the OP:

To even things out[??], many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

So it may be a correlate to whatever the full picture of classroom practices and philosophy is behind this new Swedish pre-school. Regardless, the type of coaching that teachers might receive from these "gender pedagogues"* would be along the lines of addressing both sexes an equal amount and with the same affect and encouragement in all subject areas. For example, the point was made in the gender-biased lang + behavior article that teachers promote participation and elaboration in boys in math, and in girls in ELA, by their language and behavior.)

That's probably enough said about that, but I'll try to clarify if you find it garbled. The theory and practices, only outllined above, are at the level of elaboration that I look for before I can say "Great idea."

*
I called it first! I want that job.

[ScandalAndy]

You're so smart and concise, Heart ! :bowdown:

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.


And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

[tapu]

And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

Yeah but Andy, don't you figure we'll have to build up to that?


Also, I don't know how invested you are in the science of evolution, but you'd need its cooperation or at least its acquiescence at some point.

[Heart]

And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

[Novelafemme]

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

The girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand and the boy building and knocking down block towers are free to do so, according to the main article. The point of it all is to create a "gender neutral space" that consists of a merging of the two spectrums...the kitchen is next to the block tower, the dolls are mingled in with the trucks and planes, the aprons and fire helmets are hanging together. There is no punctuation in terms of boy/girl themes. No finality or border between male and female, feminine and masculine. The grey area is their playground and these children are allowed the space and freedom to simply *be*. In my opinion there is nothing subtly coercive about that.

[ScandalAndy]

Yeah but Andy, don't you figure we'll have to build up to that?


Also, I don't know how invested you are in the science of evolution, but you'd need its cooperation or at least its acquiescence at some point.

No, i'm not a fan of "building up to" anything just because the thought of it makes people uncomfortable. It wasn't so long ago that it was uncomfortable for men to entertain the notion that women were capable of making an informed decision and should have the right to vote.


I am very invested in evolution, and very interested to hear how you believe societal gendering of behaviors is related to it.

[AtLast]

I feel very similarly, ALH! Thank you for sharing this. :)

You are very welcome! You know, it would be very interesting to hear more about this from femmes. But, I guess that is for another thread. Some of this is expressed in femme threads- I take a look sometimes, but I wonder if this could be discussed in combination with butches and ranges of femmes and butches including transmen and women.

I know that this varied community has so many areas surrounded with negative experiences and self-perceptions (at times) surrounding our gender presentation that we all have to deal with- yet, I have found a fundamental freeing as part of this community in terms of gender as a butch woman. And learned so much from a more positive perspective via other identifications and gender presentaions.

[tapu]

No, i'm not a fan of "building up to" anything just because the thought of it makes people uncomfortable. It wasn't so long ago that it was uncomfortable for men to entertain the notion that women were capable of making an informed decision and should have the right to vote.


Picard could say, "Make it so" but his underlings had to find a way to get there. That's more what I mean by "building up to it."

Men did not suddenly wake up, entertaining the notion that women were capable of an informed vote. Acceptance of gays and more obviously gay marriage has followed the same "build-up."

But besides the human factor behind a need for "build-up," we also need that development time to figure out HOW to do it. It's the recognition of that lets us move toward the ideals, and to refine them as necessary.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, oof, so much to explore! My first post in this thread brought it up but there didn't seem to be any general interest. If you want to discuss that perspective, we could try to do it here, or in another gender thread.

Cheers! tap

[ScandalAndy]

Picard could say, "Make it so" but his underlings had to find a way to get there. That's more what I mean by "building up to it."

Men did not suddenly wake up, entertaining the notion that women were capable of an informed vote. Acceptance of gays and more obviously gay marriage has followed the same "build-up."

But besides the human factor behind a need for "build-up," we also need that development time to figure out HOW to do it. It's the recognition of that lets us move toward the ideals, and to refine them as necessary.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, oof, so much to explore! My first post in this thread brought it up but there didn't seem to be any general interest. If you want to discuss that perspective, we could try to do it here, or in another gender thread.

Cheers! tap


I do understand what you're saying, and yes there need to be individuals who figure out how to accomplish a common goal. As I'm sure you've seen, there are different ways to get things done. Nearly every committee or group I've been in has seemed to split fairly evenly into two loosely defined camps:

The ones who get it done right away and sometimes break some things in the process, and the ones who go slow and steady and don't break anything, but are sometimes forced to accept compromises that deter progress.

Clearly, i'm a hard-headed, liberal, jump in with both feet, raging feminist dyke, and I have no qualms about being loud and open about it. This approach doesn't work for everyone, and some individuals' personalities and skills are much better suited to slow maneuvering through the system as opposed to trying to smash it all. :)

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were "in your face" suffragists, and working in concert with them were hundreds of other women who moved behind the scenes, avoiding the public eye. I'm a firm believer that the two pronged approach is the way to go, and I think we can look at conquering gender the same way. I know that there are individuals posting in this thread that do not agree with my opinions or my approach, but to them I say: You need my fighting style just as much as I need yours.

I respect your desire to go slowly and make lasting changes, but from the current mental and physical treatment of differently gendered individuals in the world right now, I must insist that there be immediate action taken as well.


P.S. i'm totes down with jumping in on a discussion in an evolution in regard to gender thread. :)

[tapu]

I have to laugh because I am often considered a little too much "git 'er done, in your face."

I think your analysis of the best dynamic for effecting social change is right on. It's not really like Picard and the underlings; it's more those out in front cutting a path and those behind them widening and further shaping it.

That said, I think the frontrunners need not only to know what they're talking about, but be able to articulate the vision. Saying "gender-neutral" is saying nothing unless you define your terms.

People on the thread are contrasting terms such as "gender-neutral," "gender-equality," "gender-diversity." I would wager that at this point, no one has the same definition for any of these. The "gender-neutral" of the OP wasn't even defined.

Until some move toward defining the goal is made, in concrete terms, even the frontrunners are running in circles. Women didn't get the vote without someone defining what it meant to treat the sexes equally in that respect: let both vote. Thus was born a movement.

[ScandalAndy]

I have to laugh because I am often considered a little too much "git 'er done, in your face."

I think your analysis of the best dynamic for effecting social change is right on. It's not really like Picard and the underlings; it's more those out in front cutting a path and those behind them widening and further shaping it.

That said, I think the frontrunners need not only to know what they're talking about, but be able to articulate the vision. Saying "gender-neutral" is saying nothing unless you define your terms.

People on the thread are contrasting terms such as "gender-neutral," "gender-equality," "gender-diversity." I would wager that at this point, no one has the same definition for any of these. The "gender-neutral" of the OP wasn't even defined.

Until some move toward defining the goal is made, in concrete terms, even the frontrunners are running in circles. Women didn't get the vote without someone defining what it meant to treat the sexes equally in that respect: let both vote. Thus was born a movement.


point taken. Let me get back to you on my current working definitions of the terminology. In the meantime, I think it would be excellent if everyone supplied the definition they're working with.

[dreadgeek]

You're so smart and concise, Heart ! :bowdown:

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.

Actually, you bring up a point I was going to make the other day and then decided to wait on it. What you describe re: race is almost *precisely* what both the Left and the Right have decided is the best way to deal with this. I see something similar happening with gender. The problem with this is that it puts the emphasis on the wrong part of the problem.

I'll describe it with race and then bring it back to gender. Both the Left (race doesn't matter) and the Right (content of our character...) appear to have decided, incorrectly in my estimation, that if we just *ignore* race then racism will go away. So one hears things like "I don't see color" or "I'm colorblind". The subtext is this: "I know I'm not supposed to be a racist so I won't see color. So as long as I can *pretend* that race doesn't exist I won't have racist thoughts or make racist statements. The moment I have to acknowledge the existence of race, I will have racist thoughts."

I think this is wrong. The problem is not that race doesn't exist (obviously there are genetic differences that lead to differences of phenotype) the problem is that we mistakenly ascribe *meaning* to these genetic differences. It is one thing to say "85% of all black Americans will develop hypertension by the time they are 50", a statement that could not be made if there were no such thing as black people. It is quite another thing to say "black Americans are more prone to be criminal than whites". One is simply a statement of fact about a particular disease and its frequency within a defined population. Another is a imposition of a meaning onto blacks.

Now we seem to have decided that the *best* way to deal with gender is not to extract mistakenly placed meaning but to do away with the category what-so-ever. So male and female must be done away with instead of the idea that, for instance, female = emotion-oriented or male = action-oriented Nor is the object to do away with the idea that the former is intrinsically bad and the latter is intrinsically good. No, the only way to liberation *must* be that the categories do not exist.

I think this is gravely mistaken. Equality is not, nor can it be, predicated on their being no categories or on the idea that all our categories are mere social constructions. Our commitment to equality and our arguments in favor of it are better based upon the idea that people are individual, semi-autonomous, self-interested agents and that it is morally unacceptable and ethically indefensible, to judge an individual on the perceived average characteristics of some group that person might be a member of.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destrctive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart

Yes. This. Precisely. The problem is not gender, the problem is injustice. There is nothing wrong with the category female or male. There is nothing wrong with the category boy or girl, man or woman, butch or femme, what-have-you. The problem is when we determine that we are going to ascribe 'good' or 'superior' to one and ascribe 'bad' or 'inferior' to another.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

Heart;

Thank you. This is what bothers me as well. I fear a situation where what we will see is that 'appropriate' behavior will just be moved. I say this, in part, based upon my experience with race and multiculturalism. About the time I was born, there was a shift in the black community away from assimilation and toward Afrocentrism. Now, had it been the case that it was merely a choice of what one might choose for oneself, that would be one thing but that's not how it played out. What happened is that Afrocentric-behavior became the new norm. So if one was not sufficiently 'African' one's entire racial identity could be be challenged. People set themselves up as gatekeepers as to who or what was considered sufficiently African. The irony is that one of the things that was proposed as a sign of an Afrocentric worldview was that there were no hierarchies or gatekeepers!

My concern, based upon prior experience, is that there will be unintended consequences to this kind of policy and one of those consequences will likely be that 'gender-neutral' will become normative and any expression of a strong gendered identity--in any dimension--will be considered against the norm.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

JustJo:

I'm going to dovetail off of what you have said because I think that Nature gets a vote in almost any plans that Homo sapiens can conceive of. SOME gender expressions are taught but some are just there. They are just there because we have an evolutionary history--whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not--and that history informs what we are. For all but the last 75 years or so, men have needed the greater upper-body strength. When all humans were hunter-gatherers, it was men who went out and hunted the big stuff, everyone hunted the small stuff, and women did most of the gathering. That kind of thing is written in our genes because, in fact, it *matters* if you have good upper body strength if you are using a spear or a bow and arrow. The boundaries of the *possible* human societies were constrained because women give birth to relatively large babies that have to be squeezed out of a relatively small space and then are fairly helpless as far as providing for themselves for the first 5 years and are not truly ready to start contributing until their teens.

Does that mean that *all* gender roles are genetic? No. The fact that, in Western societies, women decorate themselves more lavishly, on average, than men is a rather interesting anomaly since it's not what we would necessarily expect. However, pretending that all gender roles are culturally conditioned is to make Homo sapiens both more and less than an animal at the same time. More because it means that unlike every *other* animal on this planet, we have no evolutionary history that made us. Less because it means that while we can try to understand, say, dogs by holding onto the idea that, in essence, a dog is a wolf-puppy that will always remain a puppy (as wolves would mark that behavior, not as we would) with a wolf-brain we cannot try to understand human beings as a social ape that is now living in an environment our brains were not designed for and which we are waiting for them to play catch up.

Cheers
Aj



Without exception, every male bodied person ran to the slide, braced themselves, lifted their arms and held the slide up off the children.

Without exception, every female bodied person ran underneath the mens' arms, and started grabbing children, pulling them away from the slide, setting them down just past the mens' legs and saying "Run!"

By the time the children were all safe, and the slide started to roll back into an upright position, there was a fair amount of laughter....when we all realized that every woman had planted her ass against the crotch of the man behind her to brace herself in a crouch....the only way to reach the kids.

I'm an independent, tough woman who has always supported herself...and I always felt like gender roles were taught. But ever since that day....I've wondered.

[ScandalAndy]

Yes. This. Precisely. The problem is not gender, the problem is injustice. There is nothing wrong with the category female or male. There is nothing wrong with the category boy or girl, man or woman, butch or femme, what-have-you. The problem is when we determine that we are going to ascribe 'good' or 'superior' to one and ascribe 'bad' or 'inferior' to another.

Cheers
Aj


This is not my most thought out response, so apologies if it's a bit convoluted, but I'm not saying that the problem is gender, i'm saying the problem is the arbitrary definitions assigned therein and the injustice that results.

Also, i'm seeing a lot of binary terminology here, and that really gets my goat. Again with the division into A or B, opposites, whatever. It's not true in nature or life in general so I dislike that it's being touted in a thread where my entire point is that it's ludicrous to think we can divide things into neat little oppositional categories and find a way for everyone to explore these categories without bias or judgment.

[dreadgeek]

This is not my most thought out response, so apologies if it's a bit convoluted, but I'm not saying that the problem is gender, i'm saying the problem is the arbitrary definitions assigned therein and the injustice that results.

Also, i'm seeing a lot of binary terminology here, and that really gets my goat. Again with the division into A or B, opposites, whatever. It's not true in nature or life in general so I dislike that it's being touted in a thread where my entire point is that it's ludicrous to think we can divide things into neat little oppositional categories and find a way for everyone to explore these categories without bias or judgment.

For the sake of brevity, I'm using binaries because--quite honestly--I don't want to type out every *possible* combination of gender expressions that human beings might be capable of. That strikes me as convoluted. So let's start here, what would a less arbitrary definition be?

Humans categorize. To use language is to categorize. The moment I call something a bird, I am tacitly making the statement that the animal I'm speaking of is not a mammal. When I speak about a land-mammal, I am tacitly making the statement that I'm not talking about water-fowl or water-dwelling mammals. I can't talk about water-dwelling mammals without making two distinctions, mammals and everything that isn't a mammal and water-dwelling and everything that is not water-dwelling.

Again, my concern is that the new normative will be "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression". Therefore, it will be fine as long as one is not identified with 'he' or 'she' in any kind of consistent fashion. What does it look like when we no longer have these arbitrary categories? What does our language sound like? How do we keep 'gender-neutral' (whatever that might mean) from being the new normative position?

Cheers
Aj

[BullDog]

I see a lot of talk in bf/queer communities railing against the binary. I don't see the main problem being how many categories there are. It's the differing values attached to them. Yes there are some problems with there being only two boxes- where you can only be one or the other. However what if woman and men were expansive categories, where individuals were free to explore and express what woman or man means to them? I wouldn't find the binary so stifling then. I think it would also provide a more natural way of recognizing more genders than two.

I am a butch woman. For me woman is expansive, almost limitless. I try to contribute to expanding what woman is and can be, not coming up with more categories. For those who have different genders I support you as well. However the problems I encounter as a butch woman is sexism and misogyny as a woman and my butchness either being translated into male terms or me being seen as "butch lite" because I am a woman. These difficulties all have a lot more to do with woman and man being narrowly defined and with man being valued over woman than it does with there being only two choices.

Butch and femme are transgressive, alternative genders but they are still a majority of the time viewed through the old value system and through a binary lens. We have come up with new variations of gender but have we broken down the value system attached to the binary? I don't believe gender neutral or multiplicity of gender in and of itself will break down sexism and misogyny which is what makes the binary so oppressive.

[ScandalAndy]

For the sake of brevity, I'm using binaries because--quite honestly--I don't want to type out every *possible* combination of gender expressions that human beings might be capable of. That strikes me as convoluted. So let's start here, what would a less arbitrary definition be?

Humans categorize. To use language is to categorize. The moment I call something a bird, I am tacitly making the statement that the animal I'm speaking of is not a mammal. When I speak about a land-mammal, I am tacitly making the statement that I'm not talking about water-fowl or water-dwelling mammals. I can't talk about water-dwelling mammals without making two distinctions, mammals and everything that isn't a mammal and water-dwelling and everything that is not water-dwelling.

Again, my concern is that the new normative will be "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression". Therefore, it will be fine as long as one is not identified with 'he' or 'she' in any kind of consistent fashion. What does it look like when we no longer have these arbitrary categories? What does our language sound like? How do we keep 'gender-neutral' (whatever that might mean) from being the new normative position?

Cheers
Aj


My apologies, i did not mean to imply that you list every possible combination. Believe it or not you and I are saying the same thing. My objection is to your example of female being emotion-oriented and male being action-oriented. I say, rather, that the autonomous individuals self identify however they wish, and the responsibility rests with them for how they choose to define the terminology they use for themselves.

I favor neutrality because it does not assume to know how you view yourself and how you present yourself to the world. Gender neutral language is still in it's infancy, yes, but it is being used. I'm not saying "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression" (although there are some androgynes who embrace that wholeheartedly), I'm saying that my interpretation of the word I choose to label my gender pantomime might not match yours.

So yes, you are correct: humans categorize. I support the gender neutral rearing of children because I would rather these children define gender, categories and their best fit in the world on their own terms rather than the interpretations that have been accepted without question for so long. Sure, it was great for men to be defined partially by their musculature back when we needed to throw spears to hunt, but we are no longer a species whose evolution depends heavily on our physical nature, I believe it is shifting towards intellectual evolution.

I understand your (and Heart's) apprehension that this will turn the judgment against those who prefer a sharply defined sense of their gender and the way they choose to represent it, but I can't see how that would be the case if all expressions were welcomed and encouraged from birth.

[ScandalAndy]

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destrctive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart


I think we have a gigantic disconnect between what you mean and what I mean when I say "gender neutral".

I use gender neutral language/pronouns in reference to some of my queer friends who prefer those pronouns and choose not to be defined by their gender. The exchanges with these individuals are just as exciting to me as those with individuals who clearly define their gender. Gender neutral language acknowledges that the individual can be anywhere on the spectrum and enjoy any combination of behaviors and activities, and I do not get to have the luxury of using gender to begin to interpret them. These individuals force me to dig deeper and find out more about them. This approach took some getting used to which, in turn, forced me to examine how large a role gender plays in my daily life.

[tapu]

Andy, can you give me some real life/real language examples of this?

I use gender neutral language/pronouns in reference to some of my queer friends who prefer those pronouns and choose not to be defined by their gender.


Like, pretend that you're talking to a few friends who identify differently along the M/F continuum, and you want to ask them each something about each other. For example, with clear M/F identifiers, you might say, "What does she think about your mustache?"

Or whatever you come up with, but I can't get what this is without hearing it.

[ScandalAndy]

Andy, can you give me some real life/real language examples of this?

I use gender neutral language/pronouns in reference to some of my queer friends who prefer those pronouns and choose not to be defined by their gender.


Like, pretend that you're talking to a few friends who identify differently along the M/F continuum, and you want to ask them each something about each other. For example, with clear M/F identifiers, you might say, "What does she think about your mustache?"

Or whatever you come up with, but I can't get what this is without hearing it.


Okay, well zie/zir are, i believe, the most common pronouns. Zie was grooming zir moustache before the drag show.

I also have a poet friend who prefers "they". They include this information in their biography before sending it to be published for a performance.

[dreadgeek]

I understand your (and Heart's) apprehension that this will turn the judgment against those who prefer a sharply defined sense of their gender and the way they choose to represent it, but I can't see how that would be the case if all expressions were welcomed and encouraged from birth.

This is why I mentioned my experience with Afrocentrism in the black community. Initially, the whole idea was that this was a way for blacks, if we so chose, to 'decolonize' our minds by focusing our attention on Africa and African culture. It has become a symbol of how 'black' one actually is. The more one assimilates the less 'authentically black' one is. To observe this in action, note how Juan Williams, or John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas get called "oreo" or "coconut" or "Uncle Tom". Now, I am the last black woman on this planet to defend Thomas, but isn't it possible that he and I could have a disagreement, even a spirited disagreement, while both of us maintain our 'black identity'? I would say yes. In the black community the consensus may very well be 'no'. So now, being African-identified, if you will, is now normative and what is aberrant is to be American-identified, or black-identified, or--gasp!--assimilationist.

I am not saying YOU would like to see gender neutral be the new norm to the exclusion of a strong sense of gender. Rather, I'm saying that just like no one in the black community in the 60s or 70s *intended* Afrocentrism to become the de facto badge of 'real, true blackness' so too might it come to pass that being strongly identified as 'he' or 'she' will be considered a sign that one is not 'really' enlightened or not 'really' committed to equality.

I understand that this is a somewhat pessimistic view of human behavior but it seems to me that *everything* implies some form of costs and that unintended consequences do crop up despite all our best intentions.

I agree that now, as we increasingly move away from the basis of economic activity being physically based and toward it being intellectually based, that we have gained some new degrees of freedom to maneuver. But I still think that we will have the evolutionary hangover from the African savannah for millennia to come. I am one who does not think we can build just any old kind of society we might conceive of--not if we have any concern about freedom or equality. That does not mean I think that change is impossible, far from it. Rather, I think that there are changes that are easier and harder depending upon how much inertia must be overcome. Getting people to eat sugary or fatty foods is easy because our bodies LOVE sugary or fatty foods and will make us feel very, very good about eating them. Getting people to have sex is, again, pretty easy to manage. Getting people to *not* eat to satiation or to eschew having sex is a bit more of a challenge since we are now trying to push something uphill.

I think getting people to a gender-neutral society is probably possible in the long-term, having a gender-neutral society where that is not normative is an uphill push.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

This is why I mentioned my experience with Afrocentrism in the black community. Initially, the whole idea was that this was a way for blacks, if we so chose, to 'decolonize' our minds by focusing our attention on Africa and African culture. It has become a symbol of how 'black' one actually is. The more one assimilates the less 'authentically black' one is. To observe this in action, note how Juan Williams, or John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas get called "oreo" or "coconut" or "Uncle Tom". Now, I am the last black woman on this planet to defend Thomas, but isn't it possible that he and I could have a disagreement, even a spirited disagreement, while both of us maintain our 'black identity'? I would say yes. In the black community the consensus may very well be 'no'. So now, being African-identified, if you will, is now normative and what is aberrant is to be American-identified, or black-identified, or--gasp!--assimilationist.

I am not saying YOU would like to see gender neutral be the new norm to the exclusion of a strong sense of gender. Rather, I'm saying that just like no one in the black community in the 60s or 70s *intended* Afrocentrism to become the de facto badge of 'real, true blackness' so too might it come to pass that being strongly identified as 'he' or 'she' will be considered a sign that one is not 'really' enlightened or not 'really' committed to equality.

I understand that this is a somewhat pessimistic view of human behavior but it seems to me that *everything* implies some form of costs and that unintended consequences do crop up despite all our best intentions.

I agree that now, as we increasingly move away from the basis of economic activity being physically based and toward it being intellectually based, that we have gained some new degrees of freedom to maneuver. But I still think that we will have the evolutionary hangover from the African savannah for millennia to come. I am one who does not think we can build just any old kind of society we might conceive of--not if we have any concern about freedom or equality. That does not mean I think that change is impossible, far from it. Rather, I think that there are changes that are easier and harder depending upon how much inertia must be overcome. Getting people to eat sugary or fatty foods is easy because our bodies LOVE sugary or fatty foods and will make us feel very, very good about eating them. Getting people to have sex is, again, pretty easy to manage. Getting people to *not* eat to satiation or to eschew having sex is a bit more of a challenge since we are now trying to push something uphill.

I think getting people to a gender-neutral society is probably possible in the long-term, having a gender-neutral society where that is not normative is an uphill push.

Cheers
Aj


I agree with everything you said here. Granted, I'm a bit of a youngin and have only been able to view the afrocentric movement of the 60s and 70s through the lens of white privilege and the pages of history books, but I can certainly draw parallels between that struggle for self-definition and the current dialogue about gender.

Thank you very much for recognizing that I am not trying to encourage gender neutrality as an exclusionary tactic. I agree that, as with all passionate movements, it is the responsibility of the revolutionaries to be vigilant and self-monitor to be sure we aren't losing sight of the big picture. I thank you for pointing that out, as it's something I feel I would like to keep in the back of my mind.

Am I correct in stating that we are both commited to the idea of a more inclusionary societal structure with it's accompanying set of terminology, despite our radically different approaches to the subject? :)

[dreadgeek]

Am I correct in stating that we are both commited to the idea of a more inclusionary societal structure with it's accompanying set of terminology, despite our radically different approaches to the subject? :)

Yes. We are certainly both committed to that. I would feel better if we centered our striving for social inclusion to be centered on the individual instead of a collective identity. I think it is sufficient to say, for instance, that regardless of my being black, butch, lesbian, nerdy I should not be denied the right to vote, a fair shake at a job, equal pay for my labor, etc. It should not matter how I identify because my claim upon those rights are not based upon my various identities. Rather, those rights adhere to me for no other reason than that I am a member of Homo sapiens.

My concern here is that we are going down a road the consequences of which we cannot be certain of. I would like a world where if some little girl has as her fondest desires for her tenth birthday, a telescope, a microscope, a chemistry set and a summer at Space Camp or some science camp, she will be encouraged in those ambitions and no one will tell her that she shouldn't have those desires. If her brother should decide that *his* fondest desires for his tenth birthday are a pony, ballet lessons and a flute no one will think him any less a boy. No one will call him a sissy. Rather, it will be that Jane wants, more than anything else, to be an astronaut and Jack wants, more than anything else, to be world renowned ballet dancer. Nothing more and nothing less. No one will think it singular or odd that the aspiring ballet dancer is a boy or the aspiring astronaut is a girl. What's more, when they are grown, if Jack bursts out crying during some touching scene in a movie no one will think Jack an odd duck. If Jane tries to be cool-as-a-cucumber most of the time, no one will think her an odd duck either.

That is the world I would like to see. If the only way to get there is through gender-neutrality then so be it. I remain unconvinced that it is either the only or even the best way.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

I see a lot of talk in bf/queer communities railing against the binary. I don't see the main problem being how many categories there are. It's the differing values attached to them. Yes there are some problems with there being only two boxes- where you can only be one or the other. However what if woman and men were expansive categories, where individuals were free to explore and express what woman or man means to them? I wouldn't find the binary so stifling then. I think it would also provide a more natural way of recognizing more genders than two.

I am a butch woman. For me woman is expansive, almost limitless. I try to contribute to expanding what woman is and can be, not coming up with more categories. For those who have different genders I support you as well. However the problems I encounter as a butch woman is sexism and misogyny as a woman and my butchness either being translated into male terms or me being seen as "butch lite" because I am a woman. These difficulties all have a lot more to do with woman and man being narrowly defined and with man being valued over woman than it does with there being only two choices.

Butch and femme are transgressive, alternative genders but they are still a majority of the time viewed through the old value system and through a binary lens. We have come up with new variations of gender but have we broken down the value system attached to the binary? I don't believe gender neutral or multiplicity of gender in and of itself will break down sexism and misogyny which is what makes the binary so oppressive.



Yes, that structural and institutional nature of valuation that continues to impact gender, race and ethnicity, and value assigned to physical and emotional "fitness." Those structures that continue to give oppression a host.

As Aj points out, there are significant physiological reasons to consider in how divisions of labor historically evolved along gender lines. Yet, in agricultural based society there was no "value" assigned to either binary distinctions. All members contributed to the continued existence of bands, tribes, families, etc. without designating one as better than the other. Most revered their aging populations and many also had places of honor for those that were "different" (two-spirit beliefs via native Americans and similar designations in early Egyptian society are only 2 examples). Both patriarchal and matriarchal societies have existed without the kinds of gender based hierarchies and value based distinctions post industrial era, evolving mainly via religious doctrine.

As we have moved into the information and technological ages and a serious time for gender to be illuminated beyond a binary, I see great opportunity to diminish, and eventually leavie value-based gender distinctions behind. It is possible. It won't be fully attained in my lifetime, but there is a good start. And this does not mean we have to become genderless or neutralize our gender presentations even those that might have attachment to what we have historically identified as male or female. There does not have to be value assigned to these distinctions at all. Or to variances in either. I think that there could also be breakthroughs linguistically so that we finally have language that supports this evolution so that we will be able to talk about gender without always searching for terms that do describe progression in gender identification.

[dreadgeek]

Yes, that structural and institutional nature of valuation that continues to impact gender, race and ethnicity, and value assigned to physical and emotional "fitness." Those structures that continue to give oppression a host.


Noam Chomsky (who I generally disagree with) has pointed out that, for instance, we place almost *no* meaning judgment on other arbitrary characteristics like eye-color or height. No one, at least in Western culture, would say "oh, women over 6' tall are smarter than women under 6' tall" or "men who are 5'6" are more prone to be criminals than men who are 5'10". We do not ascribe intelligence to brown eyed people, kindness to blue eyed people and dutifulness to green eyed people. Height and eye color are just two visual descriptors we might use to describe someone physically but we do not interpret that physical description to say something about their character.
I think we should be aspiring to a culture where the characteristics we *currently* use to ascribed character traits to a person are no more meaningful than height or eye color.

Cheers
Aj

[JustJo]

Noam Chomsky (who I generally disagree with) has pointed out that, for instance, we place almost *no* meaning judgment on other arbitrary characteristics like eye-color or height. No one, at least in Western culture, would say "oh, women over 6' tall are smarter than women under 6' tall" or "men who are 5'6" are more prone to be criminals than men who are 5'10". We do not ascribe intelligence to brown eyed people, kindness to blue eyed people and dutifulness to green eyed people. Height and eye color are just two visual descriptors we might use to describe someone physically but we do not interpret that physical description to say something about their character.
I think we should be aspiring to a culture where the characteristics we *currently* use to ascribed character traits to a person are no more meaningful than height or eye color.Cheers
Aj

Yes, this exactly....whether those descriptive terms have to do with gender, race, age, size or whatever else you can imagine.

We get hung up (individually and as a society), I think, when we attach character assumptions and value judgements based on physical characteristics.

[tapu]

Noam Chomsky (who I generally disagree with) has pointed out that, for instance, we place almost *no* meaning judgment on other arbitrary characteristics like eye-color or height. No one, at least in Western culture, would say "oh, women over 6' tall are smarter than women under 6' tall" or "men who are 5'6" are more prone to be criminals than men who are 5'10". We do not ascribe intelligence to brown eyed people, kindness to blue eyed people and dutifulness to green eyed people. Height and eye color are just two visual descriptors we might use to describe someone physically but we do not interpret that physical description to say something about their character.
I think we should be aspiring to a culture where the characteristics we *currently* use to ascribed character traits to a person are no more meaningful than height or eye color.CheersAj

Veering off-topic maybe, so I'll be brief, but: It's fairly well supported that there are judgments attached to each of the trait pairs/triads you mention. Taller women do better in business than short women. Someone's bias is behind that. Green-eyed women are tagged as jealous; redheads as fiery. To some degree you can never eradicate bias in anything. For whatever reason, humans consciously and unconsciously widely pair objectively unrelated traits.


[[I must tease you with this: Though Chomsky is in no way a prescriptive linguist, in the context I think it better to say, "Noam Chomsky (whom I generally disagree with)" >;-)

[dreadgeek]

Veering off-topic maybe, so I'll be brief, but: It's fairly well supported that there are judgments attached to each of the trait pairs/triads you mention. Taller women do better in business than short women. Someone's bias is behind that. Green-eyed women are tagged as jealous; redheads as fiery. To some degree you can never eradicate bias in anything. For whatever reason, humans consciously and unconsciously widely pair objectively unrelated traits.


[[I must tease you with this: Though Chomsky is in no way a prescriptive linguist, in the context I think it better to say, "Noam Chomsky (whom I generally disagree with)" >;-)

Congratulations, you've just moved to the top of my short list as my preferred editrix for my book! (joking) Oh and thank you, the funny thing is that I had originally typed 'whom' and then changed it.

Oh and while linguistics is not my speciality, my guess as to why we categorize is that it is an artifact of language--a spandrel if you will. If it's true, (and I'm almost certainly wrong on the particulars) I wonder if this was a forced move or if it is possible to have language and *not* engage in this kind of obsessive categorization.

Cheers
Aj

[julieisafemme]

If my child attends a gender neutral classroom how do I explain Mama when she comes home? How do I explain TV, magazines and all the other junk that children are exposed to? How do I explain my partner's gender?

There have been studies done on race and how children process it and at what age they have an understanding of it. One of the most important things to come out of that study is that what a child learns at school is almost useless unless the concepts are talked about at home. That is where the most critical and important learning goes on for very young children. So I am wondering how effective can a program like this be? It will be interesting to find out.

This is a link to the discussion of the study.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zYt7ptPPcboJ:www.sonoma.edu/users/s/smithh/psy380/toc/katz.pdf+phyllis+a.+katz&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[tapu]

Okay, well zie/zir are, i believe, the most common pronouns. Zie was grooming zir moustache before the drag show.

I also have a poet friend who prefers "they". They include this information in their biography before sending it to be published for a performance.

Huh. Well. That would be beyond my unconscious control. I'd suggest that for speech to be fluid, one would have to engage in studious application of the extended pronoun matrix for months, if not years, before mastering it as native speech.

[ScandalAndy]

If my child attends a gender neutral classroom how do I explain Mama when she comes home? How do I explain TV, magazines and all the other junk that children are exposed to? How do I explain my partner's gender?

There have been studies done on race and how children process it and at what age they have an understanding of it. One of the most important things to come out of that study is that what a child learns at school is almost useless unless the concepts are talked about at home. That is where the most critical and important learning goes on for very young children. So I am wondering how effective can a program like this be? It will be interesting to find out.

This is a link to the discussion of the study.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zYt7ptPPcboJ:www.sonoma.edu/users/s/smithh/psy380/toc/katz.pdf+phyllis+a.+katz&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I'm curious why you believe that if the parents are sending their children to a gender neutral school, they would not be supportive of the concept and addressing it in the home as well.


Huh. Well. That would be beyond my unconscious control. I'd suggest that for speech to be fluid, one would have to engage in studious application of the extended pronoun matrix for months, if not years, before mastering it as native speech.

Actually, I tend to use "they" and "their" fluently in everyday speech, as I work in a state where you can still be fired for sexual orientation. I never offer up my partner's gender in conversation.

[tapu]

I'm curious why you believe that if the parents are sending their children to a gender neutral school, they would not be supportive of the concept and addressing it in the home as well.

I agree that they would be predisposed to the idea, but would they know how to effect it? I don't think that, in reality, it would be something you could just sort of say, "Okay! Let's do that!"

I may be taking this idea too seriously though. What do you think about that?



Actually, I tend to use "they" and "their" fluently in everyday speech, as I work in a state where you can still be fired for sexual orientation. I never offer up my partner's gender in conversation.

Oh well, so do I but not because I've consciously adopted it. Neutral 3rd person singular has been shifting in natural language from "one" and "he" to "they" for decades. (thank god.)

I was responding to the idea of using pronouns everyone picks for themselves.

[Heart]

Okay, well zie/zir are, i believe, the most common pronouns. Zie was grooming zir moustache before the drag show.

I also have a poet friend who prefers "they". They include this information in their biography before sending it to be published for a performance.

Focusing on individual pronoun use does not address institutional inequities. There is a kind of obsession with individuality in the gender movement that feels like it becomes a distraction from deeper systemic issues. I do understand that using pronouns not burdened with stereotyped histories (in the 1970s Marge Piercy suggested "per," Kate Swift suggested "tey, ter, tem"), is appealing, but does it dismantle anything, or is it an option for a privileged few?

I agree Scandal, that we may have a disconnect which is only word-deep, as I think we both support the idea of gender as liberatory rather than oppressive. The idea I don't support is that gender is useless, out-dated, and needs to be erased, done away with. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMO.

I think where the more interesting discussion lies is in notions of the BINARY. I never experienced male/female feminine/masculine as restricted boxes. They have always been a landscape to me from as far back as I can remember. Perhaps that's thanks to my rather bohemian upbringing. What I have experienced, of course, is conflict between my own wide perception of gender and the broader culture's desire to restrict me as a woman, to have me agree to ridiculously and dangerously narrow ideas of what a woman is. I have fought this for a long-ass time. As the mother of a son, I have also resisted stereotyped notions of what it means to be a boy or a man.

Perhaps I don't want to see that hard and worthy battle reduced to an array of pronouns from which we can pick like a buffet. On the other hand, perhaps that is exactly what I fought for.

Heart

[cane]

To clearify:

The swedish agenda is not to take away gender all together, it's not about taking away peoples boxes, should they want them, and so on...

Our agenda is however to make the boxes large enough to move and to make them optional and a choice.

It's a question of democracy, which comes with the right to be whoever you want, and being protected by laws and safe whilest being it.

We are well aware of the fact that a pronoun doesn't change anything, and we are acctually not saying that we should never use them again we just want to avoid to put the kids in the "he" or "she" box, it's not for me to decide.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I've seen the article here in the UK. Personally, I think a place to have some space to play in with a bit more mental choice in it is always healthier than less. I'd gladly send my kids to it (if I had any). I would have LOVED that the male sexed kids in school referred to me as a friend or hen rather than having to beat the cr@p out of them regularly to prove I could play baseball just as good as them.

People bitch about how they wanted to play with certain toys etc when they were kids but were told they couldn't. here's a space where you can play with whatever the hell you want and be yourself for a few hours a day without someone forcing you to *be* something. You are given a choice to play with what you want, act in the way is most comfortable without having to choose a binary at age 4.

I would have LOVED it. It would have been breathing space for me. I think it's fabulous.

[Chazz]

Focusing on individual pronoun use does not address institutional inequities. There is a kind of obsession with individuality in the gender movement that feels like it becomes a distraction from deeper systemic issues. I do understand that using pronouns not burdened with stereotyped histories (in the 1970s Marge Piercy suggested "per," Kate Swift suggested "tey, ter, tem"), is appealing, but does it dismantle anything, or is it an option for a privileged few?

It absolutely has become an obsession. An obsession, that has turned the "movement" into a self-preoccupied, individualistic, gender hierarchy. I don't care that many don't see this. It's enough that I do.

....The idea I don't support is that gender is useless, out-dated, and needs to be erased, done away with. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMO.

Gender is not outdated. What is outdated is the gender binary. To the extent that, that binary is reified, or rendered invisible, we all remain oppressed.

I think where the more interesting discussion lies is in notions of the BINARY. I never experienced male/female feminine/masculine as restricted boxes. They have always been a landscape to me from as far back as I can remember....

I don't want my "landscape" rendered invisible.

Perhaps I don't want to see that hard and worthy battle reduced to an array of pronouns from which we can pick like a buffet. On the other hand, perhaps that is exactly what I fought for.

Heart

Pronouns are not the issue. The meaning attached to them, are.

Certain behaviors and terms have been designated off limits, even illegal, in polite society, has that eradicated hate crimes, racism, sexism, xenophobia, or bias?

[Chazz]

Gender neutral toys have been around for a generation.

I work with kids. The gender binary is getting worse, not better. Young people are more affected by popular culture than the toys they played with as little children.

As a child, I played with girl and boy toys. It did not change my cisButch outcome.

[BullDog]

I don't see anything wrong with kids all calling each other friends rather than gender specific pronouns. However, I think allowing space for boys to play with dolls and girls to play with trucks or whatever other toys they choose- where there is no value placed on trucks being more important or boy-like or where boys will not be ridiculed for playing with dolls is more important than the reason we can all play with dolls or trucks is because we are all "friends" rather than "she" or "he."

[EnderD_503]

I've been following this story for some time, and I have to say I'm pretty impressed with all I've read on it. I think it's an excellent idea. As others have said, it's not that the kindergarten system is attempting to take away gender should one wish to identify one way or the other, but to allow kids to decide for themselves what they want to play with rather than telling them trucks = boys = better and dolls = girls = lesser. The pronoun issue is also great, imo. I think at the very least it will help kids understand each other as humans first, instead of as specific genders as they're unfortunately taught in many places.

I also applaud them taking out books that peg boys/girls into fixed roles, like Cinderella, Snow White etc. where the "damsel" is always in distress and the "prince" must always come save her.

As others have said, Swedish/Scandinavian society is far more progressive than North American society, and even Western/Central European society in many respects. There seems to be a rise in the number of Swedish parents raising their children as gender neutral/allowing their children to express themselves as any gender they wish. And to be frank, most Scandinavian men I've met haven't been as obsessed with acting hypermasculine when they don't feel that's for them the way men are pressured to in many other societies. It's an interesting time in the "gender movement" when it comes to Sweden, imo. From Stieg Larsson's graphic depiction of a woman committing a revenge rape against her rapist (something which, from the articles I've read, North American critics have been less comfortable with...which is excellent, imo), to getting rid of the rigid gender binary in younger generations by widening the breadth of what they can acceptably be.

All that to say, I fully support this, and I do hope Canada catches on soon. Though that may be wishful thinking with our lovely friend Mr. Harper in the PMs seat. If I were to make a prediction, I would say that the rest of Scandinavia as well as the Benelux will be the next to catch on to striking gender rigidity from the Kindergarten curriculum.

[tapu]

EnderD, hi. I'm glad to read more specifics about this endeavor.

I'm still not understanding what goes on with pronouns in the class. When the teachers need pronouns (they can't keep saying friends, friend), do they use replacement forms (just to make some up as examples: hish, ishi...)? Are the kids then to pick up the use of the replacement forms?

If what you've been following goes into those details, I'd love to read it myself. I've just not been able to imagine it in practice at all.

tanx

[EnderD_503]

EnderD, hi. I'm glad to read more specifics about this endeavor.

I'm still not understanding what goes on with pronouns in the class. When the teachers need pronouns (they can't keep saying friends, friend), do they use replacement forms (just to make some up as examples: hish, ishi...)? Are the kids then to pick up the use of the replacement forms?

If what you've been following goes into those details, I'd love to read it myself. I've just not been able to imagine it in practice at all.

tanx

As far as I know they only use "friends" when they're addressing a group of students, instead of calling them "boys and girls" or "boys" or "girls." As far as the pronouns, they say they use "hen" when addressing anyone in the third person, instead of him/her. They've explained that it's a non-existent pronoun in the Swedish language, but which they're using as a kind of gender neutral pronoun (a bit like they or even zie/hy etc that are sometimes used in English in the lgbt community), instead of identifying or assuming any one person's gender as masculine/feminine.

[tapu]

I had trouble seeing the practicality of using "hen" until you said it's like using "they."

I think that English speakers would be able to move more easily from "she/he" to "they," because of the related language change that has already been in progress for a while, namely "they" = 3rd person singular when referent is unspecified. (Previously "one" or the egregious "he," now "they.")

A replacement of established forms by novel, unrelated, and previously non-natural forms would be very difficult to effect in one swoop. But do you (or does anyone) know if maybe "hen" has been following a trajectory similar to "they"? If so, then I can see this finally now.

afterthought: it is likely something is being adopted as neutral 3rd person in Swedish, given the cultural direction this whole idea indicates

[lisa93]

I think it's a great idea.