....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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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

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.

No one said they did.

Adults rear kids, children don't rear themselves.

Would that it was that simple.

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?

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.

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

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. >;-)

"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....

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.

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.

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.